Community Forums

Share:

Plat Boundary discussion  

Page 1 / 2

Seth Bishop PLS
Posts: 24
Member
(@seth-bishop-pls)
20+ posts
Joined: 2 years ago

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

11 Replies
1 Reply
Tommy Young
Member
(@tommy-young)
Joined: 9 years ago

1,000+ posts
Posts: 2293
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?

Reply
A Harris
Posts: 8140
Member
(@a-harris)
5,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

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.

Reply
mattharnett
Posts: 462
Member
(@mattharnett)
250+ posts
Joined: 7 years ago

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.

Reply
1 Reply
Seth Bishop PLS
Member
(@seth-bishop-pls)
Joined: 2 years ago

20+ posts
Posts: 24
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..

Reply
Peter Lothian
Posts: 419
Member
(@peter-lothian)
250+ posts
Joined: 8 years ago

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.

Reply
1 Reply
Seth Bishop PLS
Member
(@seth-bishop-pls)
Joined: 2 years ago

20+ posts
Posts: 24

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...

Reply
MightyMoe
Posts: 6141
Member
(@mightymoe)
5,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

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.

 

Reply
2 Replies
Seth Bishop PLS
Member
(@seth-bishop-pls)
Joined: 2 years ago

20+ posts
Posts: 24

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.. 

Reply
MightyMoe
Member
(@mightymoe)
Joined: 9 years ago

5,000+ posts
Posts: 6141
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.

Reply
Page 1 / 2
Default
:)
:d
:wink:
:mrgreen:
:neutral:
:twisted:
:arrow:
:shock:
:???:
:cool:
:evil:
:oops:
:razz:
:roll:
:cry:
:eek:
:lol:
:mad:
:sad:
:!:
:?:
:idea:
:hmm:
:beg:
:whew:
:chuckle:
:silly:
:envy:
:shutmouth: