LOL..... we hate real property law
I'm with you Lex. Reset ALL poorly set pins. After all, you're measurements are surely more precise that anybody else that has surveyed out there.
One question though. Why stop at the block corners? Were they 'exactly' where they were supposed to be?
The block corners are the original monuments. By definition, they have no error. But these capped rebars... well, they just have Jack Legged Re-tracer wrote all over them.
Lex M.
Repose.
> The block corners are the original monuments. >
> Lex M.
And you know this how? Were you there when they were set? Maybe they were all just the same size? Did they have a neon sign flashing "Original Corner?"
I think they were all just cleverly disguised poser pins.B-)
>JBS, it's usually a lot more interesting if you holdoff posting until late afternoon.
😉 😛 😛 😀 😀 😀 😉
LMAO!!!!
JBS
JBS, it's usually a lot more interesting if you holdoff posting until late afternoon.
But JBS's post is an A plus answer and much appreciated.
Evelyn
> Jack Legged Re-tracer wrote all over them.
I think we're the ones being "jacked" by your bogus post. Seems to me you've done this before. Bored today?
> JBS, it's usually a lot more interesting if you holdoff posting until late afternoon.
>
> But JBS's post is an A plus answer and much appreciated.
>
> Evelyn
:good:
As best as I can tell 0 agree with you and 12 "more or less" disagree with you. You might want to rethink your position.
I have to agree with Lex on some accounts. A record monument in it's original and undisturbed location will hold. The rods set in the 80's sound like they were set based on holding one side and the record math, not the apportioned solution based on the entire subdivision.
I'll be a sales rep for Dennis Drumm (again) and send you to Primacode to check out Transform for Windows. It is a proration software to account for the erroneous measurements of the past. Dennis is an esteemed member of the Board of Registration and strongly believes in holding the math to establish the record property lines.
The actual boundaries may vary by occupation, which of course follows a whole different set of rules. Of course, 0.26' is not much when looking at standard occupation. A 4" or 6" thick fence post right on the line based on the pin would be close enough to the line if you held the apportioned line. I would not reset a monument, I'd just detail the monument away from the corner.
There is nothing worse than picking up a plan and seeing monuments at every corner only to find them all out by a couple tenths. We even found a Land Court Plan where the record surveyor did not detail a bound that was out by over a foot. How the Land Court accepted it is beyond me...
Okay here is what you should do.
Get a fleet of sky crane helicopters with pilots trained in close formation flying.
Then have a huge steel grid constructed which is a 1'=1' representation of the Plat.
Then have the helicopters fly in formation, one at each corner and the others at key points along the edges and the middle as necessary to support the grid. Have them lift the steel grid and fly it to your subdivision. Then they can lower the grid down on top of the subdivision, any fence, sheds, houses and other improvements that aren't "perfect" will get crushed at the Lot lines.
This is called "helicoptering the plat in."
both are pincushion
> ...I would not reset a monument, I'd just detail the monument away from the corner.
What is the difference in this and setting another monument 0.26' away? Nothing. They are both absurd. The monument either represents the corner or it doesn't. There is no "the corner is 0.15' N and 0.26' E". They are both forms of a pincushion.
Well, I got suckered into this one. Lex must not have class on Fridays.....
both are pincushion
Not every monument can be good.
We have an industrial park in town, Commerce Park. The perimeter was defined on a plan, then the road wad laid out and accepted on another plan. They they started carving out lot after lot on individual plans. Monuments called for on the record plans exist but if you hold the math of all the plans, the puzzle fits together nicely, but the bounds called for on the plans are off by as much as a foot.
The original intent was obviously to convey what the math shows, otherwise the lots would not fit together perfectly. Something must have broken somewhere as the monuments don't match that math.
All the original work was done by the same company. They did some decent work, but there are some anticipated issues with their plans or their monuments.
So David, would you break all the record math to work with those monuments? Or would you disregard bounds that were set so far away from the intended location that they cannot be valid?
I seem to recall some court case a few years ago where the surveyor relied on close section corners. Some young surveyor with a GPS proved those wrong and the first surveyor had some issues to deal with.
both are pincushion
> ...Monuments called for on the record plans exist but if you hold the math of all the plans, the puzzle fits together nicely, but the bounds called for on the plans are off by as much as a foot.
If the monuments called for exist, I don't understand why there would be any question as to where the corner is. Math be damned. It doesn't matter if the math matches where a monument is. People buy land, not numbers. The land owners there purchased that tract of land in reference to those markers. Why would you set another one 1 foot away to make the math work?
No, not all monuments can be good. I am not going to reject one just to make some numbers work though, especially if other evidence suggests that monument represents the corner.
More Interesting Apportionment Question
> Thought I would run it by you and see if you agree that I am on firm footing to reset the corners marked by the capped rebars based on a good proration.
The more interesting question would be in a scenario where the subdivider still owns the lots adjacent to the one marked in the 1980's, where reference to the 1980's-vintage markers has not been made a part of any description by which the lot was conveyed, there is no particular evidence of reliance upon them by anyone other than the lot owner, and the markers are shown to have been placed after the original conveyance at the sole request of the new owner, what would prevent that lot owner from removing the slightly erroneous markers and having new markers placed in the positions shown on the subdivision plat?
For example, if the 1980's-vintage surveyor shorted the lot, is that owner now bound forever to accept the surveyor's mistake in any circumstance, regardless of any specific pattern of facts?
As the lots in question are being consolidated, and none of the found pins seem to be at the exterior corners of the new consolidated lot (as I read it), they will simply go away once the new lot is replatted, accepted, and recorded. The old interior corners will be eliminated.
Sounds like a trick question.
OK, where's the Snark?