There are three tracts as shown in the sketch below. #1 is going to be developed, but they want to add #5 from #2, and #6 from #3, and also give #4 to #2. There are currently no buildings at all on #1, and single houses on #2 and #3. What is the best way to do all of this? The final subdivision will show the tract being developed as a single entity (#1 + #5 + #6 - #4). In a discussion with the engineers doing the design, one says there should be three subdivision plats filed before the development plan, showing #3 and #6 on one, #1 and #4 on another, and #5 and #2 on the third, and then transfer the lots created back and forth. #3 has a sanitary sewer, and so does #1. Not sure about #2, I don't think it does. #6 will not have any lots on it as part of the development (open space and entrance road), but #5 will have lots. #4 is pretty much to provide access from the new road to #2. His thoughts are that the three subdivision plans will then have the correct acreage for #2 and #3 (for tax purposes), and the final subdivision plan at the end will have the correct acreage for #1, although that won't matter because it will create a 100 or so developed lots with new houses, which will individually pay taxes. Another engineer says we are just moving the boundary lines, and a subdivision is not needed, but that doesn't really make sense to me. I am not familiar with the county or municipality, so I don't know what their regs are, but I believe it is up to the municipality to specify how they want it done, and I told them to get a ruling from the planning commission in the municipality. But, a formal subdivision plat (with setbacks, sewer requirements, etc) seems like a lot of hoops to jump through to trade some acreage back and forth.
Just curious how this would be handled other places.
Assuming all the "adjusted tracts" would meet all building requirements (size, access, etc.,), a record of survey showing the current and final adjusted boundaries - no bureaucratic process necessary. But, every jurisdiction (city & county) is different, in some places the regulations are logical, practical, and are easy to navigate - some not so much.........
John Hamilton, post: 387145, member: 640 wrote: I believe it is up to the municipality to specify how they want it done,
I agree with you. Strictly speaking, since you aren't creating any new lots it could be a BLA. But I'm quite sure that if this was in the Portland area you would be doing a replat. Actually a truncated form of plat we use here when 3 or fewer lots are involved known as a Partition Plat. Your engineers should learn to pick their battles.
I think that may be one of the problems, they might not meet minimum requirements for a build-able lot as currently zoned, but as mentioned, two of them will not be built upon. So not sure how that works.
They are going to the municipality to ask (they have had a lot of meetings so far with them about the overall plan, but not this issue).
I had a fellow surveyor friend buy a lot with a house on it and the lot next to it. He wanted to build a Barn on the adjacent lot. They made him do a Resubdivision of the two lots making them one big lot, before they would allow him to build the barn.
Property line adjustment.
We most likely would be doing a boundary line adjustment which would be reviewed by the municipality or agency that has jurisdiction over building in the area. The reason is to confirm that one is not creating a substandard parcel, that all structures on the resulting parcels conform to current zoning standards and that the assessed valuation is adjusted accordingly.
Tom, most jurisdictions that we work do not allow an accessory structure (barn) on a parcel with out a main structure on it. In your friends case a lot merger would have to take place in order to permit the barn. Or, a lot line adjustment to put the barn site on the main structure (house) lot. keeps me busy sometimes.
Alternatively to a boundary line adjustment we have found that an exclusive easement may be a better alternative for a client. Of course they need to be advised by their attorney but a vehicle like that does not usually does not require municipal or lender approval, saving a whole lot of time and money. I note that transactions like what is described by the op may be in violation of some of the fine print on the deed of trust or loan document. Get ready to line up and pay the man, again.
Not my problem, but I would hope that they have already made sure it is not going to cause a problem with lenders (if any exist).
I am only peripherally involved, so there are probably details I am not aware of.
John Hamilton, post: 387145, member: 640 wrote: There are three tracts as shown in the sketch below. #1 is going to be developed, but they want to add #5 from #2, and #6 from #3, and also give #4 to #2. There are currently no buildings at all on #1, and single houses on #2 and #3. What is the best way to do all of this? The final subdivision will show the tract being developed as a single entity (#1 + #5 + #6 - #4). In a discussion with the engineers doing the design, one says there should be three subdivision plats filed before the development plan, showing #3 and #6 on one, #1 and #4 on another, and #5 and #2 on the third, and then transfer the lots created back and forth. #3 has a sanitary sewer, and so does #1. Not sure about #2, I don't think it does. #6 will not have any lots on it as part of the development (open space and entrance road), but #5 will have lots. #4 is pretty much to provide access from the new road to #2. His thoughts are that the three subdivision plans will then have the correct acreage for #2 and #3 (for tax purposes), and the final subdivision plan at the end will have the correct acreage for #1, although that won't matter because it will create a 100 or so developed lots with new houses, which will individually pay taxes. Another engineer says we are just moving the boundary lines, and a subdivision is not needed, but that doesn't really make sense to me. I am not familiar with the county or municipality, so I don't know what their regs are, but I believe it is up to the municipality to specify how they want it done, and I told them to get a ruling from the planning commission in the municipality. But, a formal subdivision plat (with setbacks, sewer requirements, etc) seems like a lot of hoops to jump through to trade some acreage back and forth.
Just curious how this would be handled other places.
In Allegheny County, PA, it would probably be easiest to make a Combination Subdivision Plan to put them all together first, and then cut them up however you feel like it.
It's up the the local rules and regs.
Like I've said before, where I am one neighbor wanted to give a meaningless 8 sq.ft. triangle to his neighbor. They had to do a full subdivision with health department approval etc
Odds are that you aren't in Eden with me. If those parcels were in my home county and not in a flood plain, it would be a piece of cake to do so long as all three adjoiners were working together. We would prepare one survey based on the existing boundaries of the three tracts and provide those descriptions directly on the plat. We would also show the three small tracts that are desired for conveyance from one owner to an adjoiner and provide those descriptions on the same plat. We also then provide on the same plat the resultant descriptions that could be used for all further conveyances of the resultant tracts, labeling them as what they really are, (3-6) (2-5+4) (1+5+6-4), such that the old descriptions and the small tract descriptions would effectively cease to exist. All that needs to follow is the conveyance of each tract in the correct order so that the final title situation is clear for all of the adjoiners.
bobwesterman, post: 387290, member: 7106 wrote: In Allegheny County, PA, it would probably be easiest to make a Combination Subdivision Plan to put them all together first, and then cut them up however you feel like it.
I think I was reading this wrong. I was assuming these were all one owner.
bobwesterman, post: 387333, member: 7106 wrote: I think I was reading this wrong. I was assuming these were all one owner.
Bob; This is Washington County. There is probably a lot more going on there currently than in Allegheny, as far as land development goes, so I am sure this has happened recently there at other locations.
As I understand it, they are "sort-of" three different owners. One is totally different. The other owner is a partner with someone else in the adjoining tract to be developed, which is owned as a corporate entity. So, two individual owners, and one corporate, with one of the individuals being part owner of the corporation.
