We do not have to worry like those in some State's where they seem to believe that a single usage creats a single tract. A tornado comes through and removes the structure used for the single usage. Why worry about needing to resubdivide something that should have never been merged in the first place? If it covers five lots, then there are still five lots. Obviously, things like setbacks only apply to the outer boundaries of the lots encumbered by the single usage structure(s). If the building(s) go away, you are back to the original intent. Also, say I own Lot 3. I buy five feet off of Lot 2 and I also buy seven feet off of Lot 4. I have three tracts that perform as one but are still three tracts. There is no bureaucratic demand that they be replatted as something other than what they are.
> 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...
I'm going to leave the interior lines as dashed without distances.
> 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
Jud,
Sorry, I took it wrong. There are no easements of any type being encumbered. The building does sit astride the 5 lots, and if sold, could remain like it is. NOW... If they felt like vacating and relocating the lot lines (replat as you call it) they could do that, but they are not required to at this moment. I could send you a copy if you'd like to visualize it.
Carl
cbcorrell @ gmail.com
Out of curiosity, what do you guys do in Arizona in this situation? If 5 lots belong to one owner and say one lot is entirely inside the structure, all lines and corners of it being within the walls?
That is what it like here at this time, but I have seen what has been happening since the 70's concerning land rights. That is why I said encourage a re plat in such cases as this, That removes all questions about underlying lots, gets rid of any easements, those in use are re dedicated and sometimes moved. Little extra frustration but good insurance for the owner. He may not be looking at tomorrow but tomorrow will come.
Anyway the Sorry is accepted.
jud
> ...In any case, the lots still exist as individual, viable lots....
Perhaps, sort of. The real test is going to be whether you could get a building permit issued for any one of the individual lots. Without that ability their status as discrete lots is little more than an esoteric novelty of interest only to surveyors.
Many blocks of Portland were subdivided, prior to the 1930's, as 25 foot lots. People bought as many as they could afford - rarely less than 2 - a built their dream homes. Today there is a desire to demolish these old shacks and redevelop the underlying 25 foot lots. But it's not allowed to just build without going through a process that is very much like replatting and costs about the same.
In California a good reason to keep all of those lots separate is they could be used in a lot line adjustment later, much cheaper than doing a subdivision. 11 lots in 2.5 acres might be a bit much but they could be used with others in the subdivision later. I think the property owner is smart keeping the status quo.
We are required to set monuments at all corners. In a situation where there are more than 5 parcels being created it is a subdivision and must go through the subdivision platting process.
> We are required to set monuments at all corners. In a situation where there are more than 5 parcels being created it is a subdivision and must go through the subdivision platting process.
These are existing lots from a 1946 plat. Building was erected in 1970±. Would you have to attempt to set the corners in the building?
> These are existing lots from a 1946 plat. Building was erected in 1970±. Would you have to attempt to set the corners in the building?
If I were in that situation and if I was required to set monuments, I would set "witness corners" to corners that couldn't practicably to set (like for corners inside a building.)
There are many instances, in counties surrounding me, that zoning has changed since subdivisions were created. For example: In 1940's a tract was divided in 25' by 200' lots. Most buyers purchased 4 contiguous lots. A house was constructed in the center of the 100' by 200' "total boundary". In 1990 the zoning was changed to 3 acre minimum lot size. If the 4 25' lots get combined, the 100' by 200' can never be split again. But if the 25' lots are dashed on the plat and retain individual tax identification numbers, they can be reconfigured.
For example: The owner could now make a 100' by 100' lot in the front and another 100' by 100' lot in the rear accessed by easement. Now he is eligible for two building permits. He has not conformed to the present zoning, but has improved the situation. However if the GIS guys combine the parcels and no one catches it, any "grandfather clause" has essentially been waived.
As a rule of thumb I advise all clients against merging lots unless 100 percent necessary to accomplish their goals. I also try to prevent "accidental" mergers for the same reason. This is the purpose for the "idiot note".
I apparently don't work far enough west to be in Carl's area, because I don't remember ever working with his plats. (I am in Amelia County, in central Virginia) But I expect he wants a note for similar reasons. It is common for the planning department in one county to copying zoning regulations from other counties. Though we don't work in the same area, we probably run into the same idiocy.
You hit the nail on the head. I don't try to take away division opportunities as they may become less readily available.
I work mostly in Montgomery County (Christiansburg and Blacksburg), Pulaski County and Radford City. The survey I'm talking about is in Pulaski County. Montgomery County is very particular these days with the "sliding scale" based on Greene County's model. I don't even work in Roanoke County, Roanoke City or Salem City... There's no need for me to.
These lots were a mix of 50' by 300'± lots (then a substantial R/W take in the early 50's) and two lots of 200' by 400'±. If one 50' lot needed to be conveyed, it could be. But, I seriously doubt it ever would. I just want the idiot note so that nobody makes any ridiculous assumptions.
Carl
I was in your area today. I wasn't surveying though. My brother got hired as an assistant professor at Radford University and I helped him move there today. He just finished the PhD program at George Mason University. All said and done, I drove a Uhaul truck 723.2 miles in the last 48 hours. I must say I don't envy you surveyors out there. It is much flatter here in central Va. Just looking up those hills from I-81 makes me short of breath. Though that part of the drive was much better than Fairfax part of it.
> I was in your area today. I wasn't surveying though. My brother got hired as an assistant professor at Radford University and I helped him move there today. He just finished the PhD program at George Mason University. All said and done, I drove a Uhaul truck 723.2 miles in the last 48 hours. I must say I don't envy you surveyors out there. It is much flatter here in central Va. Just looking up those hills from I-81 makes me short of breath. Though that part of the drive was much better than Fairfax part of it.
Well, next time you are down this way visiting, give me a ring. I'm not usually up and down those hill much anymore either (inefficient with a robotic setup), but have to get around on the edges of them some.
Carl