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.
In such a case the law seems to be well settled that the survey upon the ground as ascertained by monuments then made to mark the boundaries of the lots is controlling, and the paper plat and field notes must give way thereto.
I could not agree more...
@jim-in-az I am surprised this thread has revived.
Keep in mind that the monuments in place represent the previously platted right of way. The right of way dedicated in the replat was not monumented, apparently due to oversight. If monuments set for the boundaries of a parcel now reconfigured by deed were accepted it is possible that would be considered a mistake.