I would report as
43,351 square feet
0.995 acres
State standards here, one would show 3 decimal places for all classes of surveys of 1 acre.
> BTW, this property sold prior to construction (vacant lot) for $350,000 twelve months ago.
It's a 1.00 acre tract despite what you calculate or measure. It was created as a 1.00 acre tract, approved as a 1.00 acre tract, and exists in the record as a 1.00 acre tract. For no other reason, it's a 1.00 acre tract.
Now, you can play all the math games you want and you can report the math any way you want on your survey, but that won't change the fact that it's a 1.00 acre tract. I wouldn't be too concerned about the selling price unless it was calculated on a price per square foot basis. Then, I'd give them the record and measured values. The buyer/seller can decide which number to use to calculate the valuation. From the value stated, it wasn't derived from the square footage, therefore, the square footage is irrelevant.
JBS
survey it again- you will come up with something different:-)
> > BTW, this property sold prior to construction (vacant lot) for $350,000 twelve months ago.
>
> It's a 1.00 acre tract despite what you calculate or measure. It was created as a 1.00 acre tract, approved as a 1.00 acre tract, and exists in the record as a 1.00 acre tract. For no other reason, it's a 1.00 acre tract.
>
> Now, you can play all the math games you want and you can report the math any way you want on your survey, but that won't change the fact that it's a 1.00 acre tract. I wouldn't be too concerned about the selling price unless it was calculated on a price per square foot basis. Then, I'd give them the record and measured values. The buyer/seller can decide which number to use to calculate the valuation. From the value stated, it wasn't derived from the square footage, therefore, the square footage is irrelevant.
>
> JBS
By that same logic is the rural tract that I surveyed a few months ago that was described in the 1946 deed as 45 acres and then I found harmonious monuments all around still 45 acres even though on the ground it was only 43.262 acres?
I report what I measure. To the tenth, to the second and to the square foot. I am paid to provide an expert opinion. I have sound methodology. The results are repeatable (within reason). Why report anything other than the facts? It is math, not philosophy.
Here in Texas
Professional Land Surveying Practices Act
Professional and Technical Standards
663.15 PRECISION
(a) The actual relative location of corner monuments found or set within the
corporate limits of any cities in Texas shall be reported within a positional
tolerance of 1:10,000 + 0.10 feet.
...
...
(d) Areas, if reported, shall be produced, recited, and/or shown only to the least
significant number compatible with the precision of closure.
If one only holds to this set of requirements, one would not need to state a square footage with any more accuracy than +/-30 square feet in 1 acre and a 1 acre tract to the nearest one-hundredth of an acre.
That standard seems a little loose to me, but it is the minimum requirement by law here.
30' Width ?
The idea is to eliminate panhandles from the lot area, but in some cases the corners are cut. I put an extra few feet into every lot and never see the issue. This town has no width factor for lot shape, just fit a circle equal to the frontage in every lot.
> >.... It's a 1.00 acre tract despite what you calculate or measure. It was created as a 1.00 acre tract, approved as a 1.00 acre tract, and exists in the record as a 1.00 acre tract. For no other reason, it's a 1.00 acre tract.
>
> By that same logic is the rural tract that I surveyed a few months ago that was described in the 1946 deed as 45 acres and then I found harmonious monuments all around still 45 acres even though on the ground it was only 43.262 acres?
>
That might be a perfect example as to why you should report what the deed calls for and what you measured. That way, you don't have to compromise what you actually measured, but you can also show what was originally deeded.
>
> Now, you can play all the math games you want and you can report the math any way you want on your survey, but that won't change the fact that it's a 1.00 acre tract.
>
> JBS
This isn't fuzzy math. The angular & lineal dimensions on the recorded subdivision plat map equate to 43,351 sqft. The pins in the ground are in the location where the original surveyor put them and they fit in harmony with the dimensions shown on the plat. It is not as if my survey differs in any way from that of the original, the only issue is that the plat map shows that this property is 1.00 ac
thansk for the feed back
This is only an issue if the requirement is a minimum of an acre.
If so, the surveyor who subdivided the lot is at fault. The approval really does not certify the surveyor did the job correctly, just that they approve what the surveyor told them. When's the last time you had a closure questioned by the Planning Board? If I were on a Planning Board I would do that, it would be awesome!
If the requirement is for a zoning acre (40,000 SF), then who cares?
If you are really concerned over the difference in value based on area, the 209 S.F. is about $1700, but look at it like an appraiser: the value of the lot is the buildability, everything else is just gravy on top.
When plats are prepared, the computers do not round to the nearest hundredths when computing, surveyors do that with the results and commonly show Distances to hundredths and Bearings to Seconds, that is a mismatch of precision that introduces errors like you are seeing. Use the given data and traverse around that plat, then do a compass rule adjustment on the thing and your distances will again be forced to show the thousandths. Then recompute the area. I do that with every plat I work with simply because of showing distances to hundredths will not provide the mathematical data to the precision that was there for the computations that were used to prepare the plat in the first place. Try it on your plat and see if you end up with numbers closer to one acre in area.
jud
AR
😀
What the heck happened?
We seem to be missing some messages...
Did i miss something? were there messages deleted?
as near as I can tell, all messages from the last 6 hours are gone
What the heck happened?
eARLIER TODAY THERE WERE 36 REPLIES TO THIS THREAD- THEN IT DROPPED TO 31- NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED. sOLAR FLARE!?!?!?! 😉
What the heck happened?
I think there were a couple of posts that bordered on personal attacks that are no longer in the thread.
As said before/elsewhere in the thread, unless there is some jurisdictional requirement for showing sq ft, and acreage to the thousandth, I wouldn't.
no sense drawing fire if you don't have to, even if you're just reporting your findings.
It would be interesting to see if there was a pattern of "scalping" the square footage throughout the subdivision and to discern if there was a reason like squeezing in just 1 more lot or something. Or was are some lots called 1.00 acres and actually 1.004?
How many lots are there total?
What the heck happened?
> I think there were a couple of posts that bordered on personal attacks that are no longer in the thread.
I don't recall any personal attacks by anyone, in fact I think that one of my posts has gone missing. I made a post prior to leaving my office, drove home and logged on and now it's gone. The entire thread concerning the 'this is not about 0.04' is missing.
If fact, look at the number of views between this recent thread and the one above it, 'here in texas", There is a gap of over 900 views.
So much for trying to talk surveying!:bad:
What the heck happened?
Not sure if it was the reason for deleting, but someone made a comment about "dumb surveyors" or something similar. I thought it was out of line since it was basically calling all the previous posters who disagreed with his theory "dumb".
What the heck happened?
> I don't recall any personal attacks by anyone...
Yes, there was a personal attack.
> So much for trying to talk surveying!:bad:
Don't blame Wendell, the rules are clear, but some posters like to continually push the envelope. Poor Wendell gets beat from every side, no matter what he does.
What the heck happened?
> > I don't recall any personal attacks by anyone...
>
> Yes, there was a personal attack.
>
>
> > So much for trying to talk surveying!:bad:
>
> Don't blame Wendell, the rules are clear, but some posters like to continually push the envelope. Poor Wendell gets beat from every side, no matter what he does.
I am not blaming anyone.
I'm here to talk surveying, that's what was happening.
Now this is dumb.
:bad: _ :bad: _ :bad:
