AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

strange lotting

8 Posts
5 Users
0 Reactions
887 Views
clearcut
(@clearcut)
Posts: 937
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I'm trying to figure out if there was a reason the lotting was done this way? I suppose there's no real problem with legal descriptions using these lot numbers, but am still trying to digest what and why.

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=299734&sid=vtf11tyh.sz3&surveyDetailsTabIndex=1


 
Posted : October 10, 2014 6:45 am
foggyidea
(@foggyidea)
Posts: 3462
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I don't understand what's wrong?


 
Posted : October 10, 2014 8:10 am
jlwahl
(@jlwahl)
Posts: 204
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

If you are talking about the 80 acre lots, that is a practice that was followed for a while and is fairly common in some areas. I would bet it is dependent on the policy in effect at the particular date the plat was approved. There is no specific reason for it except the policy at the time.

In other words the way sections were divided by protraction on the plat varied over time, and may also differ by the land office involved as well as time frame.

- jlw


 
Posted : October 10, 2014 8:48 am
paden-cash
(@paden-cash)
Posts: 11086
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I've never seen that. It appears as though anything with less that the cardinal 160 acres got a Lot number. The protracted 40 acre lines are shown, but the Lot size appears to be 80, except in Sec. 31.

No answers here, that's a new one on me. Some sort of "Special Instructions" no doubt.


 
Posted : October 10, 2014 9:30 am
clearcut
(@clearcut)
Posts: 937
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Foggy,

These 2 plats are more the "norm". Note that they show the lotting only for the most northern and western 16th aliquot parts of the sections receiving the township errors. The plat I showed earlier included the entire northern and western halves of those sections.

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=299947&sid=cbqb1zxq.va2&surveyDetailsTabIndex=1

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=299740&sid=cdfi4d11.glq&surveyDetailsTabIndex=1


 
Posted : October 10, 2014 9:55 am

clearcut
(@clearcut)
Posts: 937
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Thanks Jerry,

I haven't noticed Magee doing this type of lotting elsewhere, but perhaps he had someone else "helping" with this particular township platting.

What through me for a loop was I was trying to locate an easement from a deed description and it called to the west half of lot 1 of the NW quarter and the east half of lot 2 of the NW quarter of a section. These calls didn't make sense to me based on a latter subdivision map showing the location of the easement and my thinking of how the lotting should look. That prompted me to pull up the GLO plat where I noticed the strange lotting.

Anyways, glad to hear you have seen it before as being a practice by some, so I won't rack my brain trying to figure out the why.

Jeff


 
Posted : October 10, 2014 10:04 am
foggyidea
(@foggyidea)
Posts: 3462
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

thanks for the explanation!


 
Posted : October 10, 2014 10:45 am
thebionicman
(@thebionicman)
Posts: 4524
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Excellent point. Whenever I hear "that's the way the BLM does it" I just shake my head. To this day there are variations year to year and field office to field office. Knowing the policies in effect at various times and places is critical to our profession, but so is knowing when 'it depends' kicks in...


 
Posted : October 10, 2014 1:07 pm