A recent survey shows 200 ft record and 199.8 measured between found monuments, which spans two lots in a simultaneously platted 1970's subdivision. A set monument gives 100 record, 100.00 measured to the client, leaving the adjoiner with the trivial deficiency. No notes or explanation is given for rationale. Do you think:
A) There probably was a reason, even though not reported, for not proportioning.
B) This is acceptable, no reasoning needed.
C) This is poor practice but no biggie
D) This is poor practice and I wouldn't want that surveyor working in my neighborhood for fear of what other things they might do.
D. D. D. D.
What were the monuments description? Two 4?x4? monuments can hog up a lot of space. ?????ÿ
No monument descriptions on the original plat. You are setting capped rebars.
D and C. This is a strang and unprofessional thing to do, but in the real world no one cares about 0.01'.
199.8 measured between found monuments
But what were these found monuments??ÿ And what are the measured distances to the next monuments??ÿ Are the monuments in pristine condition, plumb, upright??ÿ Or are they bent, leaning, loose, etc??ÿ 0.2' in a 50 year old subdivision doesn't sound all that bad.
The result isn't so bad, but I don't think it followed good principles. There was no notation to suggest problems with the found monuments, nor measurements given beyond them.
Whatever the condition of the monuments, he made a best estimate of their positions.
It is possible that he tried to maintain the bearing of the perpendicular line to match the adjoining lots, but there is no indication of measurement beyond these two lots in that direction.
That is a tough one.?ÿ If it is a case of two lots and there is nothing else to go with I would split evenly.?ÿ But, if it was a case of a junior/senior rights possibility, I would lean towards giving the full measure to the appropriate party.
Finding a one-tenth foot shortage in 100 feet is super common.?ÿ The first surveyor was probably using a steel tape over uneven ground with minor obstructions that we can't see today but were there in 1947 when the survey was made.
I hope it's A. Could be D. Not enough info to determine. Here in Oregon it would be noted by County Surveyor reviewers, most likely, and may not record without a further explanation.
Then what were the measurements to?
Found rebars
?ÿ
I thought we were supposed to hold the mons in the street, accept but virtually move the found corners and stick the calculated position regardless. /s
Are there not situations where being short .2 will make or break a site plan or subdivision??ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿvirtually move the found corners
There is quite a bit of sentiment on this forum against ever calling for virtual corners.
Also, monuments over measurements, unless you have other evidence the monuments are not in the original positions.
There is indeed, here and in associations all over I am sure. The practice is common however suggesting that not all are in alignment.
My boundary understanding is pretty basic; by "virtually move" I was referring to the old " found and accepted ip .06 North and .15 East of calculated position". Such things really get people's back up but, I kind of like it for calculating search position etc. it helps you tie down a record of survey really well. It is not for me to say what is right or wrong, I am but a soldier going fourth with the instruction of the stamping surveyor.?ÿ
accepted ip .06 North and .15 East of calculated position"
That's a lot different from "Found ip 0.06 N and 0.15 E of true corner"
So it is, I think you just helped me see the light. I always thought that the inference was that they were equivalent. Thanks
That is largely irrelevant.?ÿ Usually with some additional research you will find old surveys, somewhere, that show their existence.?ÿ Too many PLSSia surveyors assume if HubTack doesn't have a recent corner record for a section corner then it must not exist.?ÿ That is a load of crap.?ÿ Similarly, too many surveyors are too lazy to go to the courthouse or similar repository and dig through all of the potential sources of information that will show when and how that monument was set.?ÿ I was digging through 1948 plans for a bridge on a county road last week to find corroboration for what I found at a section corner.?ÿ I had already exhausted about eight other methods to search for corner data for that spot, including a railroad strip map.
I suppose there could be a fence or something right at the 100' mark and that's why the guy stuck a pin there but it smells more like lazy surveying to me so I'd go with D.
