Residential Lot Splits

[Steve]

I have some questions concerning residential lot splits in the City of Tulsa.

The original plat (#1865) for my midtown Tulsa subdivision was filed on December 31, 1953.  Along with the original plat, a list of 9 restrictive property covenants was also filed.  Most covenants are pretty standard fare, but covenant #2 states "All of said lots...shall be improved by single family dwellings...and not more than one dwelling shall be erected upon any one lot described in the plat."  I interpret this covenant as a means by the developer to maintain lot size and open areas, and prevent future lot splits and incompatible dense development.  These covenants were to remain unchanged until 9-15-78, after which they can be modified by a majority vote of the property owners.  The covenants automatically renew for unlimited 5-year periods after 9-15-78.  To my knowledge, there has never been a change made to the original covenants and they remain in legal force today.

The question of lot splits has not been an issue in my neighborhood, but recently a situation has arisen that makes a lot split a real possibility.  Can anyone shed some light and experience regarding the prevention of lot splits in Tulsa through enforcement of restrictive covenants?  Are my covenants just "hot air on paper" and useless in helping to prevent future lot splits?  Thanks.

[pmcalk]

Steve, I cannot tell you a whole lot about the legal validity of the covenant for your neighborhood, however, I can tell you that, with respect to the city, the covenants will play no role.  In other words, the TMAPC only looks to the zoning code to determine the ability to split a lot.  Covenants are akin to private contracts between the homeowners, and it is the obligation of those homeowners to enforce the covenants.  So, if the lot in question can be split and still meet all of the zoning requirements, your only recourse to prevent the lot split is through a private action--meaning your neighborhood will have to hire an attorney and take the developer to court.  Unfortunately, in many ways convenants are only as good as the attorney you hire to enforce them.  Also, I do know that in Oklahoma, covenants are always read to give the property owner the most rights.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

I have some questions concerning residential lot splits in the City of Tulsa.

The original plat (#1865) for my midtown Tulsa subdivision was filed on December 31, 1953.  Along with the original plat, a list of 9 restrictive property covenants was also filed.  Most covenants are pretty standard fare, but covenant #2 states "All of said lots...shall be improved by single family dwellings...and not more than one dwelling shall be erected upon any one lot described in the plat."  I interpret this covenant as a means by the developer to maintain lot size and open areas, and prevent future lot splits and incompatible dense development.  These covenants were to remain unchanged until 9-15-78, after which they can be modified by a majority vote of the property owners.  The covenants automatically renew for unlimited 5-year periods after 9-15-78.  To my knowledge, there has never been a change made to the original covenants and they remain in legal force today.

The question of lot splits has not been an issue in my neighborhood, but recently a situation has arisen that makes a lot split a real possibility.  Can anyone shed some light and experience regarding the prevention of lot splits in Tulsa through enforcement of restrictive covenants?  Are my covenants just "hot air on paper" and useless in helping to prevent future lot splits?  Thanks.

IIRC, the lots in Lortondale aren't that wide.  I can't imagine a situation where a lot split would be possible!?  the way I read that covenant, the developer was trying to prevent people (before zoning codes) from squeezing two houses on one lot (and preventing the developer from selling another lot).  If one of the lots was extra large, I can imagine that even the original developer wouldn't have opposed splitting it.  If you look at the plat of Maple Ridge, Sunset Terrace, or many other older midtown neighborhoods, most of the platted property lines are hatched out and replaced, either with lot splits, or combining of the original lots.  It's amazing.  I think the zoning should protect you from anything silly.  They require a minimum width of the lot, a minimum square footage, etc., so if this situation is trying to create a miniscule lot, it won't happen.  Of course, nothing says someone couldn't buy two houses, tear them both down, and squeeze in three houses and still meet zoning....  I'd be interested to know more about the specific case your'e talking about.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603


I think the zoning should protect you from anything silly.

I wouldn't rely on it.  Also, I wouldn't rely on the boundaries of the zoning districts remaining as they are currently.  After reading pmcalk's comment about the zoning along 38th St west of Lewis, I wouldn't rely on INCOG's zoning map to be accurate, either, although it shows most of Lortondale to be in an RS-3 district.

Some of the corner lots along Darlington appear to be larger than the typical Lortondale interior lot.  Restrictive covenants aside, it might be possible to split a corner into two lots meeting all the requirements for lots in an RS-3 district.  Also, it might be possible to split a corner lot and an adjacent interior lot into three lots conforming to the RS-3 district.

If the Lortondale restrictive covenants (see Part 5 of the Lortondale Addition History on the Lortondale Community website) have remained in force, then covenant 2 might be your best protection against lot splits because it refers to lots as described in the Lortondale Addition plat.

If the Lortondale restrictive covenants can't prevent a lot split, then Tulsa's silly Zoning Code ought to prevent the construction of more than one looming McMansion with its requisite steep pitched roof on a single lot (per Section 207).  But don't count on it.  The big questions about Tulsa's silly Zoning Code go to its predictability.  It is subject to change on the basis of ill-defined planning goals and at the whim of INCOG "planners" who might have very different motivations than the property owners they are supposed to be serving.  Ask those who reside near 38th & Lewis, near 16th & Victor, or to the southwest of 71st & Harvard how they feel about our Zoning Code and the officials who administer it.  My guess: not very warm and fuzzy.    

[tim huntzinger]

The lot next to me was split and it was a complete nightmare.  The 'developer' tried to move the power lines while my wife and I were at work, actually tried to install a power pole in my backyard.  The 'developer' is a retired PSO/AEP employee.  The crew on site recognized that the procedure would have brought the line within two feet of my roof, meaning I would have had a $20K re-sell issue.  As it is, he moved cable/tele lines, stapling them to my house without my permission and has never remedied the situation.

Splitting lots? Watch the builder closely.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Some of the corner lots along Darlington appear to be larger than the typical Lortondale interior lot.  Restrictive covenants aside, it might be possible to split a corner into two lots meeting all the requirements for lots in an RS-3 district.  Also, it might be possible to split a corner lot and an adjacent interior lot into three lots conforming to the RS-3 district.

If the Lortondale restrictive covenants (see Part 5 of the Lortondale Addition History on the Lortondale Community website) have remained in force, then covenant 2 might be your best protection against lot splits because it refers to lots as described in the Lortondale Addition plat.

If the Lortondale restrictive covenants can't prevent a lot split, then Tulsa's silly Zoning Code ought to prevent the construction of more than one looming McMansion with its requisite steep pitched roof on a single lot (per Section 207).  But don't count on it.  The big questions about Tulsa's silly Zoning Code go to its predictability.  It is subject to change on the basis of ill-defined planning goals and at the whim of INCOG "planners" who might have very different motivations than the property owners they are supposed to be serving.  Ask those who reside near 38th & Lewis, near 16th & Victor, or to the southwest of 71st & Harvard how they feel about our Zoning Code and the officials who administer it.  My guess: not very warm and fuzzy.    

Thanks for everyone's comments to my original post.  (I am the person that compiled and wrote the history information on the Lortondale website, and I have understood covenant #2 to be an attempt to prevent splits.)

On 26th Street at the north end of the original subdivision are about 8 lots (Block 1, Lots 5-12) that are unique, oversized, extra deep lots.  These lots have front access from 26th St. but several also back up to 25th Pl./25th Court and can be accessed from the north too.

The situation I refer to involves Lot 11 & 12, Block 1.  Lot 11 is our neighborhood swimming pool and lot 12 is a vacant lot used as the playground/rec. area for the pool complex.  Our historic neighborhood pool is sadly in danger of permanently closing due to lack of patronage and funding, and I think it is a real possibility that the property will eventually be sold for infill development.  Both of these pool complex lots are oversized (width and depth) and have access from 26th St. AND 25th to the north.  These are the lots I am concerned about "splitting" and I am just trying to further research the issue at this point.  The vacant lot (12) has actually been split already in terms of ownership, with the east 1/3 being owned by the pool operators and contains the pool pump house and filter tanks.  The western 2/3 is owned by a former resident that now lives in Texas and is used with his consent as a playground area for the pool.  Given the unique large size of these 2 adjacent lots and the fact that they can be accessed by city streets from both the north and south, I have serious concerns about the future of this property.  I intend to do everything I can to help maintain the property as our historic (first in Tulsa) private neighborhood pool.  

Our Lortondale covenants say that any owner may sue for reversal of a violation and/or to collect monetary damages for said violations.  At this point, my take on restrictive covenants is this:  They don't have the force of law or trump zoning, but exist to be a deterrent to undesireable activities, and give the homeowner "ammo" should he decide to bring a civil suit for damages.

Thanks for all your comments.  I want to be educated about this issue should it rear its ugly head in my neighborhood one day.