the mathematical closure and calculations of a parcel that I am surveying equates to 43,351 square feet. The recorded plat of the property was subdivided in 2001 and indicates that the lot contains 1.00 Acres. (no square footage stated, only acreage shown to the hundredths)
The property is a five sided figure, with the least being 47.55'
Concerning the issue of significant figures, should I disclose that there is a deficiency?
BTW, this property sold prior to construction (vacant lot) for $350,000 twelve months ago.
> the mathematical closure and calculations of a parcel that I am surveying equates to 43,351 square feet. The recorded plat of the property was subdivided in 2001 and indicates that the lot contains 1.00 Acres. (no square footage stated, only acreage shown to the hundredths)
>
> The property is a five sided figure, with the least being 47.55'
> Concerning the issue of significant figures, should I disclose that there is a deficiency?
>
> BTW, this property sold prior to construction (vacant lot) for $350,000 twelve months ago.
There is no deficiency. It is 1.00 acres, however I would add the square feet to my survey. Now a question, does the record say 1.00 more or less? My standard practice is to report the square feet and then add the acres with a more or less. for example "43,351 s.f. (1.00 acres more or less)"
Though my old boss always truncated acreages....
0.995 acres rounds to 1.00
or you could go kick a pin.
To see if I'm understanding this correctly...
1. The orig. plat calls the acreage of a certain lot 1.00 acres.
2. You have recovered all monuments in reasonable condition and the area enclosed by your survey is 43331 SF.
The short answer is - yes it's 1.00 ac. - probably....
These are my questions-
What is the area of the record tract based on the record calls?
Is there any significant difference in the record calls vs found?
Was rounding to the hundredth acre a requirement of the subdivision regulations in place at the time of platting?
What alligators appear if you show 0.99 acres?
- back later- need to hit some time hacks-
I like Rankin's questions. However, if the chance of encountering alligators is small, let them sleep and report, correctly, an area of 1.00 acres. BTW, except for McMillimeter, I thought I was the most anal-rententive poster here.
>
> These are my questions-
>
> What is the area of the record tract based on the record calls?
The record tract (Lot) dimensions equate to 43,351
>
> Is there any significant difference in the record calls vs found?
All original monuments found; variance 0.08
>
> Was rounding to the hundredth acre a requirement of the subdivision regulations in place at the time of platting?
I don't know, each lot on the plat shows only acreage to hundreths
>
> What alligators appear if you show 0.99 acres?
Expensive dirt $350,000/43,560
>
> - back later- need to hit some time hacks-
Is this your first day on the job??? 1.00 acres or 1.0? Or 43500 sq what's? .... LMFAO
> There is no deficiency. It is 1.00 acres, however I would add the square feet to my survey. Now a question, does the record say 1.00 more or less? My standard practice is to report the square feet and then add the acres with a more or less. for example "43,351 s.f. (1.00 acres more or less)"
Why would you report the square footage?
Would you round your square footage reported?
You do realize that moving your location of one of the monuments 0.01 feet would mean a very different square footage.
I know that many of the CAD programs automatically report square footage. I just never understood why.
Larry P
Larry,
I have some clients that require the square footage to be reported on the plat.
If required, I show both, but only show the square footage to the nearest whole foot. I show the acreage what it is. Luckily, I very rarely deal with lots that are designed for the absolute minimum square footage. One of the benefits of working in a mostly rural area.
Jimmy
More importantly, at least in my opinion, don't let the value of the property make your calculator hand tremble. You're either sure of your measurements, or you're not. And I'm guessing you're not responsible for the original platting and area calc.
It shouldn't really matter how you report your measurements, cheap dirt is measured the same as expensive dirt. Ask the client how he/ she wants it shown.
He may be like we are. Under one acre gets three decimals, over 1.00 acres gets two (although there are exceptions to that rule also).
Show it as 1.00 or 0.995. Doesn't matter much if you found all of the corners.
Please Recall, "You Are Following In The Footsteps"
You have five bearings and distances, which we must assume you found within your state's tolerance since you do not say otherwise. The area 43,351 SF = 0.9952 Ac which rounds to 1.00 Ac.
Report that you found what the original surveyor intended.
The municipality has accepted the tract as 1 Acre for 10 years, don't slander the title, because you will go broke trying to correct it.
Have you checked the entire filed map for deficiences and have you surveyed the surrounding parcels?
The deficiency could be explained by a 1' blunder N-S or E-W.
Have you read the pertinent subdivision ordinance?
I have worked in municipalities where the 1 Acre zone requires a minimum of 40,000 SF, I guess they want perfectly square lots.
I have also worked in municipalies that allow Lot Averaging on a subdivision, I take it they understand that the land does not layout out perfectly.
Have you reviewed the "Final Subdivision Plat"?
There is seldom a requirement that the "Filed Map" (usually meeting state law requirements) contain everything that may have been evident on "Final Subdivision Plat" (usually meeting local municipal requirements) such as variances and waivers.
Lastly, can you explain "de minimis"?
Paul in PA
Hang on a second Larry...
Larry,
Zoning in many jurisdictions (o.k mine) REQUIRES the square footage of every lot be on the survey to see if ti conforms with the district said lot is in.
Ex.
A lot in a R 7.5 district (residential 7,500 sq ft lot) could require a variance to build on or modify an existing structure if the lot only measured 7,250 sq ft.
Lot area is a huge deal around here.
Gentleman and/or Ladies
Keep in mind that Zoning requirements may come into play here.
AS I replied to Larry, if the lot doesn't work out to be 43,560 then the applicant may have to go for a variance for a permit.
In some of the places I work in, if you don't depict the square feet, they will NOT ACCEPT THE PLAN...period
Zoning dept. don't care about 'intent of a deed'
I agree with everyone....hows that? You are all the experts.
The acreage is made so political by government agencies.
Appraisers get confused when they see the acres and square feet double-annotated. They get their calculators out and convert from acres to sf, and don't get your answer. (ex. you round 43,330sf = 0.995ac; 0.995ac=43,340sf.)
It also goes against the surveyors grain to take a calculation based on the distances that is a report to the nearest sf, and round it to the 10, or 100's place. And think about it: we call out bearings to the nearest arc-second, and distances to the nearest 0.01' even though we know our precision isn't quite to that standard; and we don't think twice about it. But we sure struggle with the areas.
Unless anyone objects, I like the theory of publishing acres only to the 0.01sf, and if it's less than an acre, square feet might be appropriate. I often publish my distances as "measured and record". Why don't I publish the acres in a similar way? (40 acres record, 38.86 as measured)
Sorry for the random thoughts. It is sad that no one can rely on the land surveyor/(scientist) to publish his or her values to the appropriate significant figures and all the nonexperts dictate how our reports should look like.
Me too! 🙂
R. Michael
So, you are agreeing that I am the second most anal-retentive poster.
Area is last on the list (Priority of Calls) so who cares, the lot is what the lot is. Get paid, tell them your solution and let them go to a hack firm for permitting if they don't like the acreage you calculated. Or offer to fix the problem by reviewing the lot with the Zoning Compliance Officer and see if he/she will make the di minimus call.
You just report the truth and it is what it is.
There's a requirement around here that portions of the lot less than 30' in width do not count towards the lot area. We fixed a plan by a different surveyor who made 3 lots in a 60,000 S.F. district, two of the lots were exactly 60,000 S.F. The Zoning Enforcement Officer nailed him on the 30' rule at the corners (silly but true). We had an easy solution. The surveyor used a 60' road width and bounds on the other side of the road. It was a 50' wide road, the extensions of the boundaries to the actual road made the areas work just fine.
30' Width ?
In every municipality I have worked in "width" is defined as either parallel to the frontage or perpenducular to the sideline. That includes 100% of a rectangular lot.
It seems you are saying that the zoning officer wants to exclude anything within a 30' triangle across the corners. That has substance only if that definition of width is included within the ordinance and then only to the rearmost area of a lot with the rear line having substantially different alignment from the front.
Paul in PA
AR
No, I am agreeing that I thought you were, but I did add a "smiley face".:-)