I am rushed to get to Pacific Palisades ( that's where all the bech bunny hunting takes place guys 😀 ) so this will be sweet and short.
Emails - His to me
Paul:
Thanks for the copy of your corner record. I would have set up the lot the same way. I believe the tract you are in set that 2"ip that I am calling south of our line, but I would be obligated to hold it's position for any survey in the tract you are working in. My parcel map will give the surplus to the lower tract to close the gap, but this does not invalidate your survey by any means. Thanks again for contacting me.
Best Regards,
My Reply
Gaps wont close when we have two monument positions. If I was in your position, I would forget the 30' and just accept the pipe as being the SW corner of Deed rec. in Book 5123 page 150, O..R. and run that line parallel with the tract or to another tract monument. No gap.
One guy once said.."Surveyors create gaps and overlaps" and he's right..we do 🙂
give me a call if you want to hear my reasonings...who knows, it may even help 🙂
Regards
Paul M Plutae LS 4722
818-415-4896 cell
818-242-8163 office
818-502-1278 fax
Some items he came up with
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
have a nice day
Where there's smoke ...
So, it looks as if there actually is something seriously wonky with the 1982 survey that you relied on in blind faith. Reading between the lines, it sounds as if the younger surveyor whose map that is was trying to make you feel like a bit less of a dumbass for not doing the work that it would have taken to have discovered that. Can't say that I blame him, but what does that have to do with your duty to your client?
Where there's smoke ...
> "Reading between the lines, ......."
Well, that might be the whole point. If you have one line and not two, there would be no multiple "lines" to read between....don't you think?
I think it is good that Paul is trying to work out the differences between the other surveyor and himself, so there is not a perpetuation of this problem. I admit I have not studied this to the extent you have, but it seems to me that a meeting of the minds is commendable and the best first step in solving the problem. Of course if you imply that the surveyor with the opposing view is a moron, you might not get very far in making your point.
Where there's smoke ...
Are bech bunnies good to eat?
Where there's smoke ...
Known as a delicacy in some parts..... good with SALSA AND SAND....
SO WHAT IS ON THE EASTY END OF THE LINE FROM THE FOUND ANCIENT 1" PIPE? a REVIEW OF THE MAPS PROVIDED BY PAUL SHOW SEVERAL 2" PIPES SET ALONG THE LINE, 1" PIPE ABOUT 355 EAST AND 2X2 HUBS. THE SUBDIVISION PAUL IS WORKING IN SHOWS A CALCED POSITION FOR THE EASTERLY TERMINUS..... THIS TYPE OF THING IS ALMOST ALWAYS PROBLEMATIC.
i know one thing - i'd choke the f'n cad guy for making a map look like a spider commune! Enough w/ the leaders already!
Where there's smoke ...
> I admit I have not studied this to the extent you have, but it seems to me that a meeting of the minds is commendable and the best first step in solving the problem.
Well, it isn't the sort of problem that will bust your head open to ponder.
All of the land that in involved in Paul's problem is out of Lots 57 and 21 shown upon this 1887 map of the subdivision of the Northern part of a a tract of land known as the Montezume Tract
http://survey.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/Misc/MR034/MR034-010.pdf
In 1924, land known as Tract No. 7896 out of Lots 57 and 58 of the 1887 subdivision was subdivided into lots by the survey shown on this map:
http://survey.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/Tract/MB0098/TR0098-005.pdf
The S'ly common corner of Lots 57 and 58 and angle point on the North line of Lot 21 is shown on that 1924 map as having been found marked by a 1 in. iron pipe. You'll note that East of there the 1924 surveyor found a 1 in. iron pipe 0.30 ft. South of the common line of Lots 21 and 58, that he found some 2x2 hubs, found a 1 in. iron pipe 0.30 ft. offset south of line, and that he set a 2 in. iron pipe on line.
Later in 1924, a different surveyor surveyed a portion of Lot 21 known as Tract No. 8251 into lots as shown on this map:
http://survey.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/Tract/MB0107/TR0107-046.pdf
Note that this other surveyor also considered the angle point in the North line of Lot 21 to be marked by a 1 in. iron pipe and that the surveyor evidently used other marks shown upon the map of Tract No. 7895 to locate the common line of Lots 21 and 58.
Fast forward through resubdivision in 1963:
http://survey.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/Tract/MB0701/TR0701-019.pdf
and resubdivision in 1975:
http://survey.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/parcel/PM064/PM064-018.pdf
to get to resubdivision map of Tract No. 40968 made from 1982 survey:
http://survey.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/Tract/MB1050/TR1050-043.pdf
Note that 1982 surveyor evidently recovered a very old 1 in. iron pipe that was considered to mark the position of the original angle point on the North line of Lot 21 and common corner of Lots 58 and 59.
While Paul hasn't researched the conveyance that severed the 30 ft. strip that is shown on the 1982 map as bounding the land subdivided, it appears that all of the surveys indicate that it is basically a 30.00 ft. strip off the North side of former Lot 21 running between two tract lines.
I find it very interesting Kent..
That the 1" Iron pipe that was found by Lynch in July of 1923
http://survey.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/Tract/MB0079/TR0079-052.pdf
was found again by Lynch in March of 1924 (Tract No. 7895) being 0.3' South of the North line of Lot 21 which caused a N'ly rotation of Lot 21's North line in less than a year.
makes a fella wonder
I find it very interesting Kent..
> That the 1" Iron pipe that was found by Lynch in July of 1923
>
>> http://survey.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/Tract/MB0079/TR0079-052.pdf
>
> was found again by Lynch in March of 1924 (Tract No. 7895) being 0.3' South of the North line of Lot 21 which caused a N'ly rotation of Lot 21's North line in less than a year.
>
>
> makes a fella wonder
I can hear my Dads' voice saying
"Well, see - There ya go"
-
I find it very interesting Kent..
Actually, the 1 in. iron pipe that Edward Lynch determined to be 0.30 ft. South of line in 1924 as shown upon his map of Tract No. 7895 is one that was evidently placed to mark the SE Corner of Lot J of EAGLE ROCK VILLA TRACT. In other words, it was a resubdivision corner that didn't control the true boundary of the tract resubdivided.
I find it very interesting Kent..
Here's the 1906 map of the EAGLE ROCK VILLA TRACT that was a subdivision of a part of Lots 56 and 57.
http://survey.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/Tract/MB0011/TR0011-098.pdf
Note that the 1906 surveyor doesn't indicate that he set 1 in. iron pipes, but he may have been responsible for them.
"Tag illegible" BTW?
This does occur of course, but in general I tend to do the Spock eyebrow raise. Generally you can read a decent amount, but not every number.
I find it very interesting Kent..
> Actually, the 1 in. iron pipe that Edward Lynch determined to be 0.30 ft. South of line in 1924 as shown upon his map of Tract No. 7895 is one that was evidently placed to mark the SE Corner of Lot J of EAGLE ROCK VILLA TRACT. In other words, it was a resubdivision corner that didn't control the true boundary of the tract resubdivided.
Oh really!!
http://survey.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/Tract/MB0052/TR0052-075.pdf
Zero to 0.30 sliver portion over 320 feet...Ummm no, I dont think so
http://survey.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/Tract/MB0011/TR0011-098.pdf
Here ya go Kent
I find it very interesting Kent..
> Oh really!!
Yes, really. The maps you've posted links to purport to be subdivisions of Lot 57 of THE MONTEZUMA TRACT, but it isn't until 1924 that the line is actually run out. Note that neither of the maps you've posted actually show the entire south line of Lot 57.
Where there's smoke ...Dane
> SO WHAT IS ON THE EASTY END OF THE LINE FROM THE FOUND ANCIENT 1" PIPE?
Nothing is shown on the map to lock down Lot 21's North line beyond what I have posted on that Area 3 picture. Dollars to doughnuts the 1" IP shown in Area 3 was knocked in at record angle and distance from Silverwood, possibly by the PM surveyor.
Area 1 shows an SSM that is being held to marry with the 'so called' ancient 1" IP. The SSM is noted in city FB 159-225 Pg 130 as being found and of unknown origin. FB 159-225 Pg 130 was done in Nov 1984.
As it stands now, neither the 1982 Tract Map and this recent survey I have received has successfully retraced the North line of Lot 21.
I also have my doubts that this 'ancient' 1" IP is the same one that is being called on the 1924 maps. 1" IP's are easy to buy and set.
If that 1" IP is the same one and we have documented proof that the area of Silverwood is moving, from the 1964 retracement, then a possibility exists that the area of the 'ancient' 1" IP is also moving and if so, then to hold that pipe as being the Golden Egg and dismissing other valid monuments and creating gaps is just silly.
Now I am not going to call Kent a dumbass like he called me one, but I think he should start considering that it may just be that a solid retracement of Lot 21's North line may not be possible. To do so, one would have to find at least two verifible monuments of record as shown on the 1924 maps. With the delevopement of the area and the unstability of hills those two golden eggs may not even exist in thier original position or at all.
As far as that survey map I received and posted portions of, there are a few holes in it that I know of in other areas south of Lot 21's North line that makes me say "Sorry, but that dog just wont bark" as well as other things shown on the map and that I posted in Areas 1,2 and 3.
I find it very interesting Kent..
Sigh
I find it very interesting Kent..
> > Oh really!!
>
> Yes, really. The maps you've posted links to purport to be subdivisions of Lot 57 of THE MONTEZUMA TRACT, but it isn't until 1924 that the line is actually run out. Note that neither of the maps you've posted actually show the entire south line of Lot 57.
Interesting. The way I see it is 57 and 21 are common lines, unless you are a gapper
I find it very interesting Kent..
Well, this isn't a head buster. On which map that you've posted a link to do you find a a retracement of the South line of Lot 57 of the 1887 subdivision of the northern portion of THE MONTEZUMA TRACT except on the 1924 map of Tract No. 7895? None? Right.
The earlier surveyors evidently attempted to do less than a thorough job, made a few assumptions, but didn't claim to have run the whole line out, at least their maps don't reflect that they did. Finally, in 1924, a surveyor shows up to do it right.
I find it very interesting Kent..
> Interesting. The way I see it is 57 and 21 are common lines,
Yes, obviously they are. But which map prior to the 1924 map of Tract No. 7895 purports to actually run a line between the corners on that common line? None?
What it appears that you have in the "ancient" 1 in. iron pipe that apparently remains in place is the monument that has been accepted by surveyors since at least 1924 as marking the angle point on the North line of Lot 21 and common corner of Lots 57 and 58. It may well have been set in 1906.
I find it very interesting Kent..
> Yes, obviously they are. But which map prior to the 1924 map of Tract No. 7895 purports to actually run a line between the corners on that common line? None?
True. Have you also noticed that from that ancient iron pipe heading east that common line of 21 and 57 is jumping up and down?
What this all boils down to for the other surveyor is he is being adamant about that 30 feet. He is holding math over physical evidence and cannot prove that he is correct in doing so. There are just too many unknowns.
21/57 may just be untraceable, so why not accept what is already in the ground. My gosh Kent, it's just a few tenths.