Community Forums

Community Forums

Share:
Notifications
Clear all

Awful Description - No remaining "stakes"  

Page 1 / 5

dooryardsurveyor
Posts: 44
Member
(@dooryardsurveyor)
20+ posts
Joined: 3 years ago

Alright, need some opinions here. This is the description of the parcel we are working on:

118022

No "stakes" were found, nothing marking any of the lines was found, and the occupation is only immediately around the dwellings. This was carved out of a 60 acre lot and is not close to any of the exterior boundaries. The original parties that created it have passed away and none of the people that I was able to contact knew of any stakes marking the boundaries. 

The part that makes it interesting is that our client owns a 208x200 lot out of the above described parcel and it appears there may be encroachments by the owner of the remaining land depending on the direction of the boundary line going southerly from the road.

How would you go about retracing the boundaries?

 

24 Replies
Scott Ellis
Posts: 1193
Member
(@scott-ellis)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 8 years ago

I see you are a Survey Tech, can the License Surveyor in your office help you? 

If it was me I would start with surveying Agnes Sylvester tract and the intersection of 143 and Plymouth-Etna Road. 

Reply
Brian Allen
Posts: 1583
Member
(@brian-allen)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 10 years ago

"No "stakes" were found, nothing marking any of the lines was found, and the occupation is only immediately around the dwellings."

But then you state:

"... it appears there may be encroachments".   

The rest of the story is?????

Reply

xyHt Magazine -- Still absolutely free!

dooryardsurveyor
Posts: 44
Member
(@dooryardsurveyor)
20+ posts
Joined: 3 years ago

Scott,

Sorry I forgot to update my profile. I am an LSIT now. I have consulted the PLS who I work under and he did not have a definitive answer yet. We wanted to see what other opinions there may be. 

All the field work is done and we have computed search coordinates a variety of ways to try and find these "stakes". We have the exterior lines of the Agnes Sylvester parcel which is the source for the subject parcel, but those lines are nowhere close to this lot. We have also completed the surveying of the intersection. The main struggle is trying to get the direction of the boundary line going south after the tie distance from the intersection.

Brian,

Should have been a little clearer. There are dwellings both on the 200x728 lot and the 200x208 exception out of it. The dwelling on the remaining land has a septic field and well that may be encroaching depending on the angle of the line as it goes south from the road.

Reply
1 Reply
Scott Ellis
Member
(@scott-ellis)
Joined: 8 years ago

1,000+ posts
Posts: 1193

Congratulations on the LSIT. 

Is the legal description better on the 200x728 tract?   Sometimes it is better to work on the smaller tract first than expand to the parent tract and adjoiners. 

The septic field could be over the boundary line, it's very difficult to give an answer with the short legal description you posted. Even if you posted all the deeds, without seeing the field work it's still difficult to answer. 

The PLS needs to pull his License out look at it, then tell himself he is a professional and make a decision to either have the septic field over the line or not. Most people don't drill a Well on someone else's tract, but it has been known to happen. Why waste money on a Survey, just drill the Well here, I know this is on my property. Is what some landowners have said.

Also there could be an agreement that the septic field could be over the line.

Reply
holy cow
Posts: 17646
Member
(@holy-cow)
10,000+ posts
Joined: 10 years ago

In my case, I would know immediately this job is not anywhere that I have a license. so I would tell them to call someone else.  I'll gladly let you other guys handle this one.

Reply
Page 1 / 5
Scroll to Top