Javad GNSS

Community Forums

Plat Boundary discussion  

  RSS

Seth Bishop PLS
(@seth-bishop-pls)
20+ posts Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 24
September 13, 2018 6:34 pm  

Good evening...

 

Im having a discussion regarding the staking of the southern boundary of 8 lots in a recorded plat...  said southern line is shown as straight on the plat, no bends or angle points.  We have found several "original" monuments in the street and on the outer boundary of the plat.  We also have found two property corners along said south line.  There is no information where the two corners came from.  No Record of Survey ect...  The surveyor in question, instead of using the original monuments set for the plat, and calculating said south line, is using the two found corners, and creating an angle point in said south line.  

 

I know its hard to discuss without particulars, but im trying to understand his thought process...

 

Thanks


ReplyQuote
A Harris
(@a-harris)
5,000+ posts Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 7274
September 13, 2018 7:02 pm  

Right or wrong, the surveyor is the person signing the papers.

Personally, I would use original control, especially when it matched original bearings and distances.

This post was modified 2 months ago by A Harris

RPLS NE Texas
d[-_-]b


ReplyQuote
mattharnett
(@mattharnett)
250+ posts Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 453
September 14, 2018 5:36 am  

If you could hold one of the rear corners and still maintain a straight line, that'd be ideal.

Using both rears and putting an angle in a straight line might take some convincing.

Matt Harnett, PLS
www.harnettsurvey.com


ReplyQuote
Peter Lothian
(@peter-lothian)
250+ posts Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 327
September 14, 2018 6:01 am  

I had a situation like that crop up some years ago. Sent the crew out to stake a lot corner shown on a plan that was 15 years old. Party chief tells me there's an old barbed wire fence about 20' further back from the calculated position. I tell him to locate the fence and I would look into it further. Turns out the lot division plan was based on anther plan that was a further 10 years older, and showed the back line as being a barbed wire fence running 400' in a straight line - a rare thing in the New England woods. So I run the deed history back even further to when the back lot line was originally described - in a deed without a plan, and the deed calls for the line to follow the fence in a northeasterly direction for so many feet. A nice, mathematically general call to a linear monument. So what happened? The boundary originally followed the fence. Then a surveyor located the fence at points 400' apart and showed it on his plan as a straight line, while it actually zigzagged quite a bit through the woods. Then the next surveyor copied the dimensions to his plan when further dividing the parcel into smaller lots, and didn't even show the boundary as following the fence. So what did I do? I "extended" the side lot line to intersect the fence, at the original rear lot line, and staked it there. That was the intent of the 15 year old lot division.


Ken Salzmann liked
ReplyQuote
Seth Bishop PLS
(@seth-bishop-pls)
20+ posts Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 24
September 14, 2018 6:08 am  
Posted by: mattharnett

If you could hold one of the rear corners and still maintain a straight line, that'd be ideal.

Using both rears and putting an angle in a straight line might take some convincing.

Yes..i agree...retrace the original intent.i am just having a hard time understanding creating a angle point..


ReplyQuote
Seth Bishop PLS
(@seth-bishop-pls)
20+ posts Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 24
September 14, 2018 6:10 am  

I would agree...the fence issue shows occupation...and when you dive in...theres an expressed call...but these are just two "prop corners"...i think he is ignoring intent of the plat...


ReplyQuote

Upgrade and save 50%

Tommy Young
(@tommy-young)
1,000+ posts Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 2270
September 14, 2018 1:15 pm  
Posted by: Seth Bishop PLS

Good evening...

 

Im having a discussion regarding the staking of the southern boundary of 8 lots in a recorded plat...  said southern line is shown as straight on the plat, no bends or angle points.  We have found several "original" monuments in the street and on the outer boundary of the plat.  We also have found two property corners along said south line.  There is no information where the two corners came from.  No Record of Survey ect...  The surveyor in question, instead of using the original monuments set for the plat, and calculating said south line, is using the two found corners, and creating an angle point in said south line.  

 

I know its hard to discuss without particulars, but im trying to understand his thought process...

 

Thanks

How far out of line are the two corners on the south line?


ReplyQuote
MightyMoe
(@mightymoe)
5,000+ posts Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 5673
September 14, 2018 1:26 pm  

It's the age old surveying question. Each monument should be accepted unless there can be a very good reason to reject it.

The burden is on the rejector, and off-line isn't a good enough reason, every monument original or reset will be somewhat off-line.

Always start with the expectation that each found monument is good, don't only look for reasons to reject.

If you have to then it's up to the surveyor to correct a correctable situation.

 


ReplyQuote
Seth Bishop PLS
(@seth-bishop-pls)
20+ posts Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 24
September 14, 2018 2:22 pm  

I think that the question should be..are the two corners original monuments...to create an angle point in the point...and which mons are controlling.. 


ReplyQuote
MightyMoe
(@mightymoe)
5,000+ posts Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 5673
September 14, 2018 2:57 pm  
Posted by: Seth Bishop PLS

I think that the question should be..are the two corners original monuments...to create an angle point in the point...and which mons are controlling.. 

That's certainly a question but it isn't the only question.


ReplyQuote
MightyMoe
(@mightymoe)
5,000+ posts Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 5673
September 14, 2018 3:15 pm  

Doing a fairly large city subdivision now, there are other subdivisions surrounding it, the ones to the west and north are recent vintage, the one to the south 1970 era, the one to the east 1960 era. There is a mix of original and resets, and mix of "original" corners starting with 1881 section corners. None of the subdivision lines "fit" between original 1/4 quarters, so they are off-line, but I'm accepting the C1/4 anyway, the 1/16th corners aren't on-line for the old subdivisions, but I'm accepting that evidence too. Now along the subdivision lines there are corners, again a mix and none on-line. Still going to accept them. So what exactly is "original" the section corners only? The off-line interior section corners?

All the lines for the new subdivision will go from found corner to found corner, it will put slight angles in the lines, on the east I suppose my client could push into the lawns of some very expensive houses, but I know he doesn't want to. I don't even have to ask him what he thinks of that idea.

Don't forget the courts don't want to see little gores and gaps making their way to their docket.

 


ReplyQuote
Jim in AZ
(@jamesf1)
100+ posts Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 197
September 14, 2018 4:44 pm  

I accept every monument I find until I can prove its not acceptable. I am then required to state on my recorded drawing why I did not accept it.

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance - Confucius


ReplyQuote

Javad GNSS

iGage IG8
  
Working

Please Login or Register