AI Assistant

Notifications

Clear all

An Uncommon Common Lot Line (at the Lake)

Kent McMillan · 2016-06-22T19:28:00Z

This is one of the more interesting problems I've dealt with. The basic situation was that a tract of land on Lake Travis, a flood control lake with a highly variable level, was subdivided into lots in August, 1950 according to a plat known as "BROOKS HOLLOW" prepared by a civil engineer named Doak Rainey. At the time that the plat was executed during a prolonged period of drought, the average level of the lake was reported by the Lower Colorado River Authority to have been 638 MSL, more than 43 ft. below the anticipated normal operating level and approximately 32 ft. below the lowest point on the ground surface along the lakeward boundary of the subdivision. The land subdivided consisted of four certain tracts, the largest of which, and the one that actually fronted on Lake Travis, was a 15.15 acre tract that was bounded on its lakeward side by "a contour which is 670 feet above Mean Sea Level as established from U.S. Geological Survey Benchmarks" along which the deed also recited courses and distances following the meanders of said contour. The normal operating level of Lake Travis is nominally 681 feet, so when the lake is full, the boundary of the 15.15 acre tract would be 11 feet below it. The significance of the 670 ft. contour was that in 1938 the subdivider's predecessor in title, a widow named Susan Clifton, had conveyed a inundation easement to the L.C.R.A. over that portion of a certain 180.5 acre tract "not exceeding 670 feet above mean sea level as determined from the United States Geological Survey benchmarks". A later owner of the 180.5 acres subject to the inundation easement had conveyed a certain 15.15 acre part of the 180.5 acres lying above the 670 ft. contour. So, in 1950 Engineer Rainey evidently made a office plot of the four tracts owned by the subdivider using the the descriptions contained in the various deeds of record, attempting to piece them together, and drawing a scheme of subdivision using the results of his office plot. The subdivision boundary labeled "670' Contour" was clearly drawn from the courses and distances along the 670' contour as set forth in the 1938 deed to L.C.R.A. and repeated in the later deed of the 15.15 acre part above the 67 ft. contour. Note that Lots 3 and 5 touch at exactly one point, their common corner, as shown upon the 1950 plat. No lots were sold by reference to that 1950 plat, however. It was not until 1953 that Lake Travis actually refilled and there was some demand for the lots of BROOKS HOLLOW, none of which had previously sold. At any rate, in December, 1953, before selling any lots, the subdivider executed a resubdivision plat of the same four tracts of land known as "BROOKS HOLLOW SUBDIVISION". There is reason to think that Doak Rainey did send a field party out to actually stake lots in the subdivision as shown upon the resubdivision plat and that a number of the stakes placed by him or his assistants can actually be found. Note that Lot 3 was resubdivided into two parts by the 1953 resub plat, but continued to share exactly one common corner with Lot 5. While the lakeward boundary of the subdivision is not explicity labeled "670' contour" as was done on the original plat, it would appear that the subdivider's intention was to subdivide the entire 15.15 acres that the 670 ft. contour bounded. The problem arose when surveyors later discovered that the common corner of Lots 3-B and 5 was not in fact on the 670 ft. contour, but more than 124 ft. from it at the nearest point. The situation is shown in the detail below. The blue line is the actual location of the contour with an elevation of 670 ft. above mean sea level as determined from the United States Geological Survey benchmarks" described in the 1938 easement deed to L.C.R.A. and in the 1945 deed by which the 15.15 acre tract was originally conveyed to separate ownership. The orange line is the boundary of the subdivision as delineated upon the 1953 plat of BROOKS HOLLOW RESUBDIVISION.In a nutshell, the question was where the common line of Lots 3-B and 5 actually ran to reach the boundary of the 15.15 ac. A dispute had arisen between the adjoining landowners fueled in part by the differing opinions of several land surveyors.

Summarize Topic

Page 2 / 2 Prev

Strictly Surveying

Last Post by dave-karoly 10 years ago

24 Posts

9 Users

0 Reactions

1,715 Views

RSS

Kent McMillan

(@kent-mcmillan)

Posts: 11416

Member

Topic starter

Translate ▼

Bill93, post: 378683, member: 87 wrote: So the principle difference between the old survey and yours was 0.4 ft difference between the datum they used and NGVD29?

No, that was probably the most minor difference, although the 0.4 ft. vertical difference made a difference of feet horizontally in the position of the subdivision boundary.

The main differences were in the method of determining the direction of the common line of Lots 3-B and 5 and the title status of the land lying between the lakeward boundaries of the lots as shown upon the subdivision plat and the actual boundary of the land subdivided, the 670 ft. elevation contour. The horizontal differences in direction amounted to roughly six feet or more of difference in location, with one surveyor's theory placing the common corner on the concrete boat ramp, which would have been the point of departure for a new round of litigation.

Posted : June 22, 2016 8:35 pm

conrad

(@conrad)

Posts: 515

Member

Translate ▼

Kent McMillan, post: 378637, member: 3 wrote:

Kent, nice, neat plan presentation. What fonts are you using in your plans?

Posted : June 23, 2016 4:42 am

Kent McMillan

(@kent-mcmillan)

Posts: 11416

Member

Topic starter

Translate ▼

Conrad, post: 378713, member: 6642 wrote: nice, neat plan presentation. What fonts are you using in your plans?

Here's a detail of that map full size so that you can see the font as well as the fact that I am extending pen plotting technology well beyond its natural life. I try to unclutter my maps as much as possible while at the same time putting more information on them than most surveyors do. The point i.d. nos. provide a neat way to key to a list of mark descriptions. a coordinate list, and to identify the same in reports.

The font is one that I created years ago that is based upon a version of a mono-pitch Courier that I use in two basic aspect ratios, mostly the condensed version.

I've been meaning to move to Bricscad and will need to find at least one condensed monopitch font.

Posted : June 23, 2016 7:58 am

dave-karoly

(@dave-karoly)

Posts: 11990

Member

Translate ▼

Kent McMillan, post: 378739, member: 3 wrote: Here's a detail of that map full size so that you can see the font as well as the fact that I am extending pen plotting technology well beyond its natural life. I try to unclutter my maps as much as possible while at the same time putting more information on them than most surveyors do. The point i.d. nos. provide a neat way to key to a list of mark descriptions. a coordinate list, and to identify the same in reports.

The font is one that I created years ago that is based upon a version of a mono-pitch Courier that I use in two basic aspect ratios, mostly the condensed version.

I've been meaning to move to Bricscad and will need to find at least one condensed monopitch font.

Wish we still had a pen plotter with india ink.

Ink jet leaves a lot to be desired for permanent maps on mylar. We use ink jet polyester film but it still seems faded, not dark and opaque like india ink.

I like the upper/lower case too. OLD HABITS DIE HARD, THOUGH.

Posted : June 23, 2016 8:25 am

Page 2 / 2 Prev

26 Forums
54.5 K Topics
592.1 K Posts
239 Online
16.9 K Members

Forum Icons: Forum contains no unread posts Forum contains unread posts

Topic Icons: Not Replied Replied Active Hot Sticky Unapproved Solved Private Closed

An Uncommon Common Lot Line (at the Lake)

Please support our supporters!

Our Policies

Quick Links

Support