Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Trial and Error Land Planning
Trial and Error Land Planning
Posted by Kent McMillan on November 15, 2010 at 7:42 amI’m finishing up a project on which just determining the boundaries of the tract to be subdivided among family members was an interesting exercise. Once that was done, the more mundane problem of how to make the cuts came into play.
At the outset, that was no problem whatsoever. A deceased parent had left quite specific instructions in his will as to how the 177 acres was to be divided. But when those instructions were followed, the results looked like this, with a tract corner falling in a stock tank.
That would have been impractical, so we discussed an alternate scheme that looked like this:
The problem with that one is that it cut a bit too much road frontage off one of the tracts. So it didn’t fly.
My client offered his solution, which looked like this:
But I thought it looked more like East Texas than Central Texas and suggested one more alternate solution that was what we ended up laying out on the ground, namely:
That actually looked pretty darn good on the ground, too. Well worth the extra effort.
andy-j replied 13 years, 6 months ago 15 Members · 34 Replies- 34 Replies
Kent,
Just out of curiosity, what were the instructions for division?
At first glance it appears that one party got the Western half while the remaining parties were to divide the Eastern half, but the acreages don’t necessarily seem to support that.
Let Me Guess
“A deceased parent”?
Surviving parent gets 90 acres, eldest child 45 acres and second child the remainder. The assumption being there was 180 acres to begin with. If the instructions said 1/2, 1/4, 1/4 I have confidence that Kent could figure it out.
What I find curious is that there appear to be 4 stock tanks on the tract, with one in every parcel on all schemes. The original scheme puts the corner in the 4th stock tank giving all 3 parcels access. That may have been what was intentioned but just no specified.
Paul in PA
You Silly Texassians
Don’t you know you buy stock tanks at the farm supply store. Those big things made by moving earth are farm ponds.
The will must have said that one child receives the western 90 acres, another received the northern 45 acres of the remaining tract and the third receives whatever is left. I doubt that the parent knew it would fall in the middle of a pond, but, it is possible.
More than once I have followed the instructions of a will to cut a quarter section into its four quarter-quarters with one of each going to specific descendants. The obvious problem being how to access the parcel(s) with no road frontage. Even in the most hotly contested case, the heirs would agree to a plan permitting access over their property.
Let Me Guess
Paul,
Unless I’m wrong, I believe the tract that Kent partitioned was Tract 19 of the Corbin Subdivision.
I don’t think the 180 acres guess will hold up.
> Just out of curiosity, what were the instructions for division?
Tract 1 was to be cut off by a line run parallel with the West line in such a position as to sever exactly 90 acres.
Tract 2 was then to be cut off off of the remaining East part by a line run parallel with the North line of the tract so as to sever exactly 45 acres.
Tract 3 was to be the remainder, estimated to contain 42.1 acres.
All of the above acreages were to be calculated including any easements upon the tracts, which meant among other things that the portion of a tract in a public road was to be included in the area calculations.
The instructions were drawn up believing the overall tract to contain 177.1 acres, based upon a 1938 resurvey.
Kent,
When carving up this piece, did you have to submit anything to the local/county/state athorities?
Did the piece have to meet any zoning requiremrnts?
Was it a subdivision?> When carving up this piece, did you have to submit anything to the local/county/state athorities?
>
> Did the piece have to meet any zoning requiremrnts?
> Was it a subdivision?No, this division among family members can be done without filing a plat.
> No, this division among family members can be done without filing a plat.
This sounds like an easily exploitable loophole, no? Are there safeguards in place like time limits before sale or something similar?
Wow…that would never happen around here…
> > No, this division among family members can be done without filing a plat.
>
> This sounds like an easily exploitable loophole, no? Are there safeguards in place like time limits before sale or something similar?It’s not as big a loophole as seems. This division doesn’t require the laying out of any new roads and the minimum tract size is over 42 acres.
Here is what the Texas Local Government Code provides:
>Sec. 212.004. PLAT REQUIRED. (a) The owner of a tract of land located within the limits or in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a municipality who divides the tract in two or more parts to lay out a subdivision of the tract, including an addition to a municipality, to lay out suburban, building, or other lots, or to lay out streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of the tract intended to be dedicated to public use or for the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent to the streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts must have a plat of the subdivision prepared. A division of a tract under this subsection includes a division regardless of whether it is made by using a metes and bounds description in a deed of conveyance or in a contract for a deed, by using a contract of sale or other executory contract to convey, or by using any other method. A division of land under this subsection does not include a division of land into parts greater than five acres, where each part has access and no public improvement is being dedicated.
> Wow…that would never happen around here…
Is that mainly because you don’t have any 177 acre tracts in Connecticut? :>
Kent
I see you posted on the cities rules, so I take it this is within a city?
The counties rules (chapter 232) should be similar, but if this is rural land, does the county have any regulations that would force it either?
We have built in exceptions, which I think are in the county regs, for conveyances to family, regardless of size.
Just thought I’d throw that out, however, I don’t know what subdivision regulations Travis or Hays counties have, however, I’m sure they have some being as where they are located.
You Silly Texassians
> Don’t you know you buy stock tanks at the farm supply store. Those big things made by moving earth are farm ponds.
Obviously, you’ve never seen a stock tank other than the trial size. Here is what a real stock tank looks like (with the lines from an earlier division schemes drawn on the photo):
Kent,
As another point of curiosity, was the will probated and filed?
I’m working right now on what might be the last land division of that kind in California. Placer County has a Gift Deed Ordinance whereby close family members can grant portions of property to each other without going through the usual land division process. The three siblings I’m working for (now in their 70’s at least) jointly inherited about 250 acres from their mother and in her will she specified that the property was to be divided among them. I wrote up descriptions of the three parcels that were included in Gift Deeds to put each parcel in separate ownerships. The County is having a hearing this Thursday to grant Conditional Certificates of Compliance that will honor these three parcels as individually saleable.
The new Subdivision Ordinance coming out soon will specifically prohibit this from happening anymore putting Placer in line with, as far as I know, all the other counties in the State. The County Planning guru I met with said he has seen parcels granted to 12-year-old sons, for example, and the parcels sold immediately afterwards, circumventing the expensive and time-consuming process that everybody else has to go through to create saleable parcels.
The “Conditional” part of these Certificates is that in order to develop the parcels, they have to comply with all the requirements of a normal land division, but two of these parcels are already developed with houses and one is a vacant rice field so chances are the requirements will never have to be met, at least not for a very long time.
lol…no, there aren’t to many tracts over 5 acres where I am kent, and those are all shopping centers.
According to what I see you posted, that would be a subdivision, and be subject to all the zoning laws and requirements that the local muni would require…
Joe
Should have left it as the will stated, looks to me like there was much thought in determining the corner location. As it was, each tract had one pond and access to a shared pond. Water is valuable in arid areas.
judIn Ontario, we used to have *cumbag *awyers lining up at the nursing homes with paperwork to effect severances of lands by will, on a ‘manufactured’ transfer of land from a health party (wishing to divide land) to a dying one.
Then, the bureauhooligans woke up and we have:
Division of land by will
50.1(1)No provision in a will that purports to subdivide land is of any effect to subdivide that land unless, irrespective of that provision, each part of the land divided could be conveyed without contravening section 50.
Retroactive effect
(2)Subsection (1) applies even though the will was made before the 26th day of July, 1990 unless the person who made the will died on or before that date.
Cheers
Derek
PS-
Kent- Have you saved up for the 2010/2011 North Aboyne Igloo kit for SWMBO ?
> As another point of curiosity, was the will probated and filed?
Alan, The will was entered for probate. The interesting wrinkle is that the testator bequeathed his interest in the land to his spouse, in whom title is presently vested, but he gave details instructions as to how he thought it should be divided among their kids that were in effect suggestions. The widow and kids have been working to give their father’s suggestions effect, but, of course, in a way that is most consistent with his intentions.
> Should have left it as the will stated, looks to me like there was much thought in determining the corner location. As it was, each tract had one pond and access to a shared pond. Water is valuable in arid areas.
Actually, all of the parties say that the intent was to make sure that each of the three tracts had a good stock tank on it. The tanks on the 45.00 acre and 42.36 acre tracts are, in fact, pretty good. The one on the west side of the 90.00 acres isn’t that great. The arrangement of pasture fences suggests that the father thought that the tank that the corner fell in would be on the 90.00 acres he’d described.
Since it didn’t, it was a task of finding a scheme that all of the parties found acceptable, and which also would put their father’s instructions for the division into effect. BTW, as I mentioned to Alan, the land actually passed to his surviving spouse. His instructions were more in the way of recommendations for how she ought to eventually convey the land in pieces to their three kids.
Log in to reply.