Leaning monument, intent or disturbed?
Two recent events brought this topic to mind. 3 weeks ago I was filling in at a Planning Board meeting for a joint venture colleague; 1 abutter was bull-bleep that his survey distance on one of her lines (which wasn??t even common with the project area) was .26?? shorter than the record distance. He had both distances on the plan and identified the monument as ??leaning?, yet it still sidetracked the meeting for ?« hour, as some members bought into her argument that we were taking land, and this needed to be resolved before the project could go forward. I finally had to break out my ??surveying string theory? speech to get things back on course.
Fast forward to yesterday, running a small boundary traverse and only around 10% of the monuments we recovered in the neighborhood are plumb & solid. These are 1-1/2? iron pipes exposed 12-30?, prime targets for plow trucks, lawn mowers and such. Already one abutter has stated ??yeah I moved that over to the hedge row, I was stick of tripping over it??.?
Leaning monuments, best practices:
When are they set at an angle per intent and the top is the corner? (either by necessity or sloppy field work)
When the monument appears to be disturbed, how do you locate and document in the field?
How is this information analyzed and applied to your boundary computations?
At what level of detail is this analyses represented on your plans and/or surveyor reports?
Lastly what field evidence (if any) do you leave for others to follow in your footsteps (replace, pincushion, reference monument, etc.)
Log in to reply.