The plat is the intent of the proprietor, not the surveyor
The argument against this is the proprietor hired the surveyor to express the proprietor's intent by monumenting it on the ground. The surveyor acted as an agent of the proprietor, thus the proprietor is responsible for the location of the monuments and does not get to argue they don't express his intent. If they didn't express his intent, the proprietor should have had them moved before they were relied upon.
?ÿ
More to the story.
It is difficult to distill all of the facts of a situation into a single posting.
Questions raised here motivated some additional research into the history of this subdivision. It was originally platted in 1994 with a 50' wide "private road - irrevocable ingress/egress easement." It was replatted in 2004 by the same company/surveyor with the additional width of right of way dedicated to the "County for the use of the public forever."
I have talked to the surveyor who has since retired and has no recollection of the project details. Apparently, the found monuments were set for the original plat and none were set or adjusted for the revised width.
The lot that is the focus of the dispute that lead to the discovery of the conflicting widths was vacant until 2020.
Again, I thank everyone for their input. I have learned more in four years as County Surveyor than in the preceding 48 years in private practice.
?ÿ
the found monuments were set for the original plat and none were set or adjusted for the revised width.
More to the story.
It is difficult to distill all of the facts of a situation into a single posting.
Questions raised here motivated some additional research into the history of this subdivision. It was originally platted in 1994 with a 50' wide "private road - irrevocable ingress/egress easement." It was replatted in 2004 by the same company/surveyor with the additional width of right of way dedicated to the "County for the use of the public forever."
I have talked to the surveyor who has since retired and has no recollection of the project details. Apparently, the found monuments were set for the original plat and none were set or adjusted for the revised width.
The lot that is the focus of the dispute that lead to the discovery of the conflicting widths was vacant until 2020.
Again, I thank everyone for their input. I have learned more in four years as County Surveyor than in the preceding 48 years in private practice.
?ÿ
And now my question: Why the "H E Double-hockey-sticks" did the platting surveyor not show the bounds he had set on his re-plat?!!!
Nothing like generating a problem where none need to have existed.
@aliquot Yeah, which is why given one could go with standard rules of construction and wind up with equitable outcome, why do otherwise??ÿ
Go with 60' ROW and now you have break in the standard rules and have elevated to clear and convincing rather than preponderance of evidence.?ÿ And, the improvements no longer agree and in fact might be hundreds of thousands of encroachments.?ÿ
I'd rather lose on the former than lose on the latter.
@kscott Sort of makes sense.?ÿ But why would there be 10 foot utility easement outside the 60 foot??ÿ I mean, seems like they granted the extra 10 feet to capture the utilities under County control?
@kscott Sort of makes sense.?ÿ But why would there be 10 foot utility easement outside the 60 foot??ÿ I mean, seems like they granted the extra 10 feet to capture the utilities under County control?
Lots to digest in this thread.?ÿ ?ÿIt's a developed subdivision, you hold the original monuments used by the unsuspecting owners that have relied upon them to build their lot improvements.
With that said, 10'+ utility easement are a requirement in all 10+ municipalities i work in.?ÿ They do this because it makes the lots bigger rather than 80' right of way they have 60' + two 10' utility easements bordering each side of the right of way.?ÿ This is typically used for dry utilities, sometimes drainage, sometimes other things.
?ÿ
@wa-id-surveyor great if no lots have been sold, otherwise it would seem you need signatures of individual lot owners.?ÿ
Old subdivision in my area where I found a deed to Town of 10 feet either side of platted road.?ÿ Several landowner signatures, but no way to know if any particular landowner at the time signed off without extensive research of all the lots. No revised plat.?ÿ Abstracts don't go back that far.?ÿ?ÿ We show boundary to original plat line with note that it might be 10 feet different.?ÿ No guidance from the Town, they will not take a position on whether they claim to original or 10 feet further. Setbacks were changed to center of traveled way (with my input) to avoid controversy there. But geez, we really should be part of helping to do better.
@duane-frymire I thought he said the plat was from 1994.?ÿ Pretty sure all of lots would of been sold by now but he doesn't really say.?ÿ If this were in Idaho you would be required by State Code to contact and resolve the issue with the original surveyor and not just kick the can down the road.?ÿ In WA, not so much.
@wa-id-surveyor Seems like more of a title issue than survey issue. But surveyors should be instrumental in trying to clear it up.
The original surveyor conveyed that he was moving to the east coast in 2004, the time of the replat, and may have dropped the ball. Others in the company probably did the field work and the relocation of the r-o-w monuments was apparently overlooked.
Multi-purpose easements adjacent to the r-o-w are required by the County.
The acceptance of the monuments in place is the best resolution of all matters except the civil matter between lot owners which led to the discovery of the discrepancy. The 50' road width exceeds current standards for this class of road. The utilities are within the easement. Fences in place align with the monumentation. And I think that is the proper decision.?ÿ
I should also mention that I respect the original surveyors work, we all make mistakes and this may be one of very few attributable to him.
I think one reason surveyors have made this transition is because of our dealings with DOTs. They often bluff their way to what they want.
Not true in all cases. My mentor was a DOT surveyor who taught that the full width theory only applies when monuments and improvements (i.e, reliance, establishment) are absent. That's the way I practiced as a DOT surveyor for 47 years. From what I have seen the courts will do the same as a rule unless they are hoodwinked.?ÿ
Good to hear there are some good eggs.
?ÿ
More to the story.
It is difficult to distill all of the facts of a situation into a single posting.
Questions raised here motivated some additional research into the history of this subdivision. It was originally platted in 1994 with a 50' wide "private road - irrevocable ingress/egress easement." It was replatted in 2004 by the same company/surveyor with the additional width of right of way dedicated to the "County for the use of the public forever."
I have talked to the surveyor who has since retired and has no recollection of the project details. Apparently, the found monuments were set for the original plat and none were set or adjusted for the revised width.
The lot that is the focus of the dispute that lead to the discovery of the conflicting widths was vacant until 2020.
Again, I thank everyone for their input. I have learned more in four years as County Surveyor than in the preceding 48 years in private practice.
?ÿ
Well that changes things. Were all the lots unsold in 2004, or did all the lot owners sign the plat?
?ÿ
The 2004 plat was executed by an unregistered LLC that represented the current lot owners. There are only 7 lots and one couple had acquired 6 of them. The other lot owners, a couple, did not sign the plat.
As i stated before, it is hard to convey all facts of a problem survey in a posting on the internet. It is hard to discover all the facts! While in private practice I almost always had one or more PLS' to bounce issues off of. In my current position I don't have that resource and I come here occasionally to help corral my thinking into a defensible decision.
I am going to move onto the next problem now. Thanks to all for your help!
We have a statement for recorded plats here in Houston that states something like, "the PCs, PTs and PIs of all rights of way are set under my supervision." Since when does a drawing overrule original monuments? What about all the lots with improvements? Every lot is a boundary survey that only goes to the ROW line.
If there are rules promulgated by some authority that have been violated by the ROW as staked, that's for that authority to decide what to do. You must show what the original surveyor did. You cannot solve the problem, as you have no problem-solving authority. Show what you found and leave it to the affected parties to find relief.
If your expertise is asked for in the future proceedings, you can testify only to what you found, not what the legal remedies are.
