Replat vs Amending Plat (in Texas)

Definately an amending plat. I just completed a lot consolidation in Lago Vista, Texas, Emerald Bend Section One. Lago Vista insited the plat be titled amending plat.

AS3

Sounds like a replat to me. We replat here even if the 2 lots are in the same subdivision.

city of austin? get it writing from the planning director of which every city.

I always thought an amending plat was specifically used to correct errors, while a replat changes original intent. Seems you are changing the original intent and therefore a replat is required.

However; does it really matter? Is anything changed? In my experience it did not matter what you called it, you still go through the same old hogwash and review.

I agree Gene…

where is Kent when you need him:-)

It matters if the underlying original lots lines remain in place. Here a re plat is the only thing that will remove that underlying line. Can you build across lot lines? We need to think about tomorrow and what our actions of today will do to an owner in the future. With planning getting more power and more demanding it is vital to consider the future.
jud

That would be a replat here.

The only difference that I see, is whether an amended plat and a replat require the same municipality intervention. Jacksonville's amended plats only go before the building inspector and he signs off on them. Replats go before the city council.

> The Municipality says two lots, two subdivisions, amending plat.

Does it really matter in this case if the City is willing to approve it for record as an amending plat? The downside is that other lot owners would probably be in a position to challenge the legality of the City's approval, particularly if there are subdivision restrictions against resubdivision in either subdivision out of which the original lots come, but once it's recorded, it would be tough to withdraw the plat from the records.

The other aspects are the subdivision restrictions that apply to the original lots. Are they identical or not?

Definitely a Replat:

A plat of XXXXX being a replat of Lot x, Block x, xxxxx subdivision and Lot y, Block y, yyyyy subdivision situated in the XXXX survey, Abstract No. XX, City of XXXXXX, SSSSS County, Texas.

Kind of like that.

Here in Houston, the lot consolidation I performed for my client in Lago Vista (complete with easement releases from utility companies, i.e. Time Warner, Southwestern Bell and Pedernales Electric Cooperative) would have been called a replat, but if your aim is to gain required approval signatures from the affected municipality, you have to play by their rules.

AS3

> > The Municipality says two lots, two subdivisions, amending plat.
>
> Does it really matter in this case if the City is willing to approve it for record as an amending plat? The downside is that other lot owners would probably be in a position to challenge the legality of the City's approval, particularly if there are subdivision restrictions against resubdivision in either subdivision out of which the original lots come, but once it's recorded, it would be tough to withdraw the plat from the records.
>
> The other aspects are the subdivision restrictions that apply to the original lots. Are they identical or not?

Well, strictly speaking, it should be a replat. Let's look at Sec. 212.016 Amending Plat, specifically, the following items:

(9) to relocate one or more lot lines between one or more adjacent lots if:

You aren't relocating a line, you're deleting a lot line, so technically, that passage doesn't apply.

(11)C:

(11) to replat one or more lots fronting on an existing street if:
(A) the owners of all those lots join in the application for amending the plat;
(B) the amendment does not attempt to remove recorded covenants or restrictions;
(C) the amendment does not increase the number of lots; and
(D) the amendment does not create or require the creation of a new street or make necessary the extension of municipal facilities.

Item "C" above kills this as being an amending plat, since you are creating two lots out of one.

As far as Kent's comments, you can't do an amending plat or replat if you attempt to remove any convenants or restrictions. It doesn't sound like you are doing that, so I don't see the problem with a replat, which is what it technically should be.

One important comment that Mr. Salazar below alludes to: The Local Government Code vests the municipality with the authority to administrate the subdivision platting process, which in effect, allows the municipality the latitude to look at the Code the way it deems appropriate.

> As far as Kent's comments, you can't do an amending plat or replat if you attempt to remove any convenants or restrictions. It doesn't sound like you are doing that, so I don't see the problem with a replat, which is what it technically should be.

Well, but what parts of the new lot will be subject to which restrictive covenants? Will the most restrictive requirements, such as, say, no commercial use, extend to all parts of the new lot, or only to those parts of the new lot within the old lots to which the respective restrictions applied?

Depending upon the nature of the proposed use of the new lot, I can see two hurdles: (1) getting municipal approval and (2) having a defense against a lawsuit brought by some landowner in either subdivision for breach of restrictive covenants.

let's dig this up, specifically in regard to building setbacks.

subdivision gets resubbed, number of lots doesn't change dramatically, however layout is completely different. standard note on plat states all CCR from previous plat apply. no other mention of anything. no separate document ever filed related to setbacks.

what happens where you live? do the old setbacks stay or go? does the act of amend/re platting convey, by subtext, the release of setback lines?

Replat.

I have caused other surveyors to amend and refile a correction(amended) plat for a subdivision to correct errors.

I have surveyed lots within a platted subdivision that had lot lines relocated, but cannot recall how the refiled plat was named.

The different subdivisions can go several ways:

Two adjacent lots on a common street or two lots on two streets, which have to leave intact and reference each subdivision's outbound's monuments while setting new monuments.

Or two lots on a common street or two lots on two streets where the change is within the common lot line and
existing monuments are kept with additional monuments between same.

The complication is relocations of subdivision easements that may affect other lots and/or in place utilities.

Replats can also make lots subject to new more difficult setbacks, etc.

Paul in PA

I usually call them a lot consolidation but some counties require the word replat. I have only used ammend to change an error on a recorded plat that I have done.

Kent McMillan, post: 22909, member: 3 wrote: > As far as Kent's comments, you can't do an amending plat or replat if you attempt to remove any convenants or restrictions. It doesn't sound like you are doing that, so I don't see the problem with a replat, which is what it technically should be.

Well, but what parts of the new lot will be subject to which restrictive covenants? Will the most restrictive requirements, such as, say, no commercial use, extend to all parts of the new lot, or only to those parts of the new lot within the old lots to which the respective restrictions applied?

Depending upon the nature of the proposed use of the new lot, I can see two hurdles: (1) getting municipal approval and (2) having a defense against a lawsuit brought by some landowner in either subdivision for breach of restrictive covenants.

Kent,

The Local Government Code, Chap. 212, sees "restrictions and covenants" as building setback lines, easements, fee dedications, and the like. Zoning restrictions, like those you mention, such as "no commercial use" isn't a platting issue. As long as you aren't modifying an easement, building set back line, etc., then you're fine. There's also nothing in Chap. 212 that prevents you from adding a new easement.

Have always shown the two new parcels created by moving a boundary on a new drawing and made a metes and bounds description of each lot as being all of one lot and a portion of the other lot or what would be proper to describe them.
Of course locally there is no metro mumbojumbo of articles or rules in writing to follow.
Within our beloved City Limits, I believe that the planning board and city council will have to approve, so their politics get read into the mix and it all depends upon if one of them are interested in acquiring the property.
Then, if they want to do something it will happen overnight without having to jump a hurdle.