I'm sure we've all seen this. A farm was cut up into Lots/Parcels/Tracts in the mid-1940's. L/P/T's are sold out in multiples to people that want them. The piece I'm doing is 11 lots of various sizes, all adjoining. There is a large commercial building sitting on parts of 5 lots. Some of the corners are in the building. The owner doesn't want the individual lots monumented, and doesn't need them monumented either. They don't need any boundary lines vacated or relocated either. It is how it is (as much as I hate that saying). In any case, the lots still exist as individual, viable lots. How would you word that in a note?
They don't do it as much now, but just showing dashed lines for the individual lots without any notation has caused some area GIS people/mappers to vacate lines in the past without authority or valid reasoning. It can usually be cleared up pretty quickly, but I would rather state that the individual lots still exist and leave it at that.
Here is my first shot at it:
ALL LOTS AND INTERIOR LOT LINES ARE TO REMAIN FULLY
INTACT, BUT WERE NOT INDIVIDUALLY MONUMENTED AT THIS
TIME.
Carl
Would encourage a re-plat of those lots to remove the underlying Platted lot lines before they complicate a sale or future financing because of planning, regulation and enforcements of the future. How are you handling the setback requirements for improvements in relation to existing lot lines? Will the building need to be torn down to comply, have you gotten a temporary variance or is the title clouded because on building across lot lines? What you can slip through may not always be serving the best interests of the owners. Here we are encouraging re plats for Partition and Subdivision Plats for these types of cases so future problems with under lying lot or parcel lines will not raise their ugly heads. We have a bunch of old Subdivisions with lots platted at 25' X 100' where 3 lots were purchased and a home built across all 3, common practice before planning and land use regulations came along, a re plat of the 3 lots is insurance for those cases against complications with future sales or refinancing.
jud
> Would encourage a re-plat of those lots to remove the underlying Platted lot lines before they complicate a sale or future financing because of planning, regulation and enforcements of the future.
I was not asked to do that. The owner is well aware of the situation.
>How are you handling the setback requirements for improvements in relation to existing lot lines? Will the building need to be torn down to comply, have you gotten a temporary variance or is the title clouded because on building across lot lines?
Commercial zoning. Zero setbacks and issues.
>What you can slip through may not always be serving the best interests of the owners.
I'm not slipping anything through, I'm complying with all laws. The survey is for the information of the owner, not a sale or upgrades.
>Here we are encouraging re plats for Partition and Subdivision Plats for these types of cases so future problems with under lying lot or parcel lines will not raise their ugly heads. We have a bunch of old Subdivisions with lots platted at 25' X 100' where 3 lots were purchased and a home built across all 3, common practice before planning and land use regulations came along, a re plat of the 3 lots is insurance for those cases against complications with future sales or refinancing.
We have those situations also. We deal with them as we need to, but do not recommend doing away with parcel lines that could be a benefit to the owner later down the line. IF there were upgrades or anything that needed permits issued by the county, they would catch that there are multiple adjoining lots, and it would be dealt with then. The area is about 5.6 acres total, if a new buyer wanted to only purchase 2 of the lots, then they would be responsible for getting the new lots surveyed and marked, if they felt the need (theoretically, they could do it without a survey if a lawyer wrote it right - but that's a different subject). What if a buyer wanted to buy 2.5 lots? Or 2 acres? There's no need to restrict what they can do with the property at this time.
While I appreciate your input, your answer doesn't really address the question that I asked.
Carl
I'm not slipping anything through, I'm complying with all laws. The survey is for the information of the owner, not a sale or upgrades.
If the survey is just to show the Owners Boundary and which Lots they own. Why are you worried about some GIS people deleting the lot lines?
We do this fairly regularly. If someone owns multiple parcels that adjoin, we show the "outer boundary" (for lack of better term at the moment) in a heavy pen weight. The interior parcel lines are show in lighter and dashed lines. We only monument the exterior, but also we do not show bearings and distances on the interior lines. We then have a note.
"Parcels are not intended to be vacated or merged"
I'm not at the office currently to look at one of our plats for the exact wording, but that says it as good as any in my opinion.
> I'm not slipping anything through, I'm complying with all laws. The survey is for the information of the owner, not a sale or upgrades.
>
>
> If the survey is just to show the Owners Boundary and which Lots they own. Why are you worried about some GIS people deleting the lot lines?
The owners may still record it at their choosing. We do not have people that oversee simple boundary surveys for recording (like a county surveyor) here. A note would seem to solidify the owners rights to sell the lots individually, if they so choose, but everybody wants to obsess about other aspects.
Carl
I understand his concern. I have seen it done before myself. We call these notes "idiot proofing".
> We do this fairly regularly. If someone owns multiple parcels that adjoin, we show the "outer boundary" (for lack of better term at the moment) in a heavy pen weight. The interior parcel lines are show in lighter and dashed lines. We only monument the exterior, but also we do not show bearings and distances on the interior lines. We then have a note.
>
> "Parcels are not intended to be vacated or merged"
>
> I'm not at the office currently to look at one of our plats for the exact wording, but that says it as good as any in my opinion.
Chris, THANK YOU. Maybe I should have asked "Virginia Surveyors". I will take your phrasing into account.
Carl
> I understand his concern. I have seen it done before myself. We call these notes "idiot proofing".
Must be a "Virginia thang". 😉
Carl
> > We do this fairly regularly. If someone owns multiple parcels that adjoin, we show the "outer boundary" (for lack of better term at the moment) in a heavy pen weight. The interior parcel lines are show in lighter and dashed lines. We only monument the exterior, but also we do not show bearings and distances on the interior lines. We then have a note.
> >
> > "Parcels are not intended to be vacated or merged"
> >
> > I'm not at the office currently to look at one of our plats for the exact wording, but that says it as good as any in my opinion.
>
> Chris, THANK YOU. Maybe I should have asked "Virginia Surveyors". I will take your phrasing into account.
>
> Carl
We do this in Texas as well, we label the Outer Boundary with a bearing and distance, and the interior with just a distance, and also the Volume and Page of the plat, and a basis of bearing.
> We do this in Texas as well, we label the Outer Boundary with a bearing and distance, and the interior with just a distance, and also the Volume and Page of the plat, and a basis of bearing.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound terse or ungrateful. I think it's just like Chris said though... If I can "idiot proof it" the first time with an extra note, I may as well do it.
> > We do this in Texas as well, we label the Outer Boundary with a bearing and distance, and the interior with just a distance, and also the Volume and Page of the plat, and a basis of bearing.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to sound terse or ungrateful. I think it's just like Chris said though... If I can "idiot proof it" the first time with an extra note, I may as well do it.
Carl,
No worries I didnt take it that way, I know what it is like be
frustrated with a project and when you get the answer you are looking for.
Carl
Around here the zoning folks try to tell people they only have one parcel and are not aloud to treat the lots as individual. Which is SO WRONG. I know where you coming from. I like your not but would change the end just a bit.
ALL LOTS AND INTERIOR LOT LINES ARE TO REMAIN FULLY
INTACT, BUT WERE NOT INDIVIDUALLY MONUMENTED for this survey.
or "for this survey plat" or "for this survey drawing" or what ever you call them.
Scott
> Carl
>
> Around here the zoning folks try to tell people they only have one parcel and are not aloud to treat the lots as individual. Which is SO WRONG. I know where you coming from. I like your not but would change the end just a bit.
>
> ALL LOTS AND INTERIOR LOT LINES ARE TO REMAIN FULLY
> INTACT, BUT WERE NOT INDIVIDUALLY MONUMENTED for this survey.
>
> or "for this survey plat" or "for this survey drawing" or what ever you call them.
>
> Scott
Roger that. Thanks for the input.
I'm with Scott Ellis, mostly, on this. Bold line around perimeter, dashed line for interior. I wouldn't show distances on those interior lines, unless I measured them, in which case I'd show the bearing and distance, particularly if some interior corner helped to reconstruct a missing outer corner. If there are no symbols/labels on interior lot corners on such a survey I would not expect that the surveyor found or set them.
I have seen the setbacks cause trouble a couple of times over the years on such tracts, but only on a couple of occasions.
As for GIS
As for the GIS question, I think Scott McLain has a good idea.
Illegal in Arizona...
Carl: it is a pity you need to accommodate the inept GIS nerds... such is life!
Is it permissible to simply leave the solid interior lines unlabelled (no b&d)? Most any surveyor could figure out an unlabelled line is not measured...
I am accustomed to showing both record and measured for All lines and dimensions... and a note in the legend, and the source of the record if there are many sources:
North 45? 22' 37" West, 123.45 feet (North 45? 18' 22" West, 123.89 feet per Parcel Map 777)
My personal choice would be to label with record and place a note saying "interior lines not surveyed"
Yep Jim, Az. does have a reg requiring all points to be monumented, even it the monument serves no purpose for anyone... just another silly black and white rule to deal with. such a waste of effort and resources...
Would this be an appropriate application of the use of 'land hooks' to denote common ownership of the 'protracted' parcels in addition to the proposed 'idiot proofing' note?
It is not the Platted Lots as Platted, their dimensions or unlabeled dashed lines that may effect the future sale or financing of the 5 Lots with one common building located on them, hence my recommendation that those 5 Lots be Re Platted, did not make clear that I was talking about those 5 incumbered Lots. Is the footprint of the building located on those 5 contiguous lots being shown, is that structure occupying utility easements along Lot lines? Unfortunate that my humble offering was not accepted as intended.
jud
