Alright, need some opinions here. This is the description of the parcel we are working on:
No "stakes" were found, nothing marking any of the lines was found, and the occupation is only immediately around the dwellings. This was carved out of a 60 acre lot and is not close to any of the exterior boundaries. The original parties that created it have passed away and none of the people that I was able to contact knew of any stakes marking the boundaries.?ÿ
The part that makes it interesting is that our client owns a 208x200 lot out of the above described parcel and it appears there may be encroachments by the owner of the remaining land depending on the direction of the boundary line going southerly from the road.
How would you go about retracing the boundaries?
?ÿ
I see you are a Survey Tech, can the License Surveyor in your office help you??ÿ
If it was me I would start with surveying Agnes Sylvester tract and the intersection of 143 and Plymouth-Etna Road.?ÿ
"No "stakes" were found, nothing marking any of the lines was found, and the occupation is only immediately around the dwellings."
But then you state:
"... it appears there may be encroachments".?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ
The rest of the story is?????
Scott,
Sorry I forgot to update my profile. I am an LSIT now. I have consulted the PLS who I work under and he did not have a definitive answer yet. We wanted to see what other opinions there may be.?ÿ
All the field work is done and we have computed search coordinates a variety of ways to try and find these "stakes". We have the exterior lines of the Agnes Sylvester parcel which is the source for the subject parcel, but those lines are nowhere close to this lot. We have also completed the surveying of the intersection. The main struggle is trying to get the direction of the boundary line going south after the tie distance from the intersection.
Brian,
Should have been a little clearer. There are dwellings both on the 200x728 lot and the 200x208 exception out of it. The dwelling on the remaining land has a septic field and well that may be encroaching depending on the angle of the line as it goes south from the road.
Congratulations on the LSIT.?ÿ
Is the legal description better on the 200x728 tract??ÿ ?ÿSometimes it is better to work on the smaller tract first than expand to the parent tract and adjoiners.?ÿ
The septic field could be over the boundary line, it's very difficult to give an answer with the short legal description you posted. Even if you posted all the deeds, without seeing the field work it's still difficult to answer.?ÿ
The PLS needs to pull his License out look at it, then tell himself he is a professional and make a decision to either have the septic field over the line or not. Most people don't drill a Well on someone else's tract, but it has been known to happen. Why waste money on a Survey, just drill the Well here, I know this is on my property. Is what some landowners have said.
Also there could be an agreement that the septic field could be over the line.
In my case, I would know immediately this job is not anywhere that I have a license. so I would tell them to call someone else. ?ÿI'll gladly let you other guys handle this one.
If the stakes aren't there, and you can't get any clues from adjoiner deeds, then all those "more or less" distances become exact distances.?ÿ The lines of the road and of Agnes Sylvester give you direction.
Scott,
Thank you,
No, unfortunately they used the same wording for both descriptions and just changed the width to 208' for the exception. That is fair enough. It happens up here quite a bit where people put stuff in anywhere they please and then worry about the boundary lines at a later date.?ÿ
Mark,?ÿ
Adjoiner deeds are no help. The problem with trying to use the line of Sylvester is that this parcel came out of the middle of the land of Sylvester. So at the time the lot was created Sylvester owned all around this parcel except for the road, tying the direction to the stake.
?ÿ
Not my part of the world, so realize I'm only throwing this out there for trivia reasons, but any older deed I see that calls for a stake at a corner, I can be reasonably sure to take that survey with a grain of salt.?ÿ It is likely that the survey was an office survey, and corners never set.?ÿ
Any chance that there may be old mow or clearing lines you could use to point you in the right direction? Perhaps some historic aerial photos might show the terrain more as it was when the description was written?
A stake or stake set implies a wooden stake, very likely set and occupied by the transit. A land owner may perpetuate that location with scrap iron of any sort; plow share, harrow tooth, pipe, axle, drill rod, Chrysler torsion bar (several over the years)?ÿor even a meat grinder (which I held for line and led me to a buried RR spike in the road). Finding something is a bonus and since I expect to find only 50% of called for by surveyors irons, I typically expect and accept nothing. That being said he words of the deeds and the structures on the ground are your monuments.. he southerly line of said road, could be the centerline, edge of traveled way/ pavement, 16.5' from centerline or some other legal and normal width. Centerline has a lot of width, I have dug out a sound under asphalt 2' from the current yellow lines, only to find yellow paint down there just over the RR spike. Looking for evidence at the rear of a sideline from such a call, requires at least 33' +/- along the line.
By the way, I have actually found stakes more than 50 years old, some with a nail.
Paul in PA
Not my part of the world either, but around here older deeds calling for stakes are a mixed bag.?ÿ Some are rebar or pipes, others were wood stakes that are long gone, and then there are the "stakes" that were a figment of the writers imagination.?ÿ
If after a thorough search you find nothing to tie this down, see if you can put the record dimensions on the ground in such a way that there is no encroachment.?ÿ Apparently no one cares much about where the parcel is otherwise, if there is no occupation than the well and septic field.
Phew! Kinda baffled that the PLS is shirking this one - it would be their stamp on it and not yours, so if it is too hot for them to handle perhaps passing this on to another firm who?ÿis willing to tackle it.
But you're to be commended for taking a shot at it and asking questions. Examining adjoining deeds, any filed surveys, lines of occupation, historic aerial photos (those can be valid evidence), and (as others have noted) search for perhaps some metal set to perpetuate the position stakes. We had one like this (but not as bad) and to validate other evidence (albeit loose evidence) we interviewed prior owners and adjoiners and recorded their testimonials. Location buy common report is not unheard of but, a last resort.?ÿ
I can not tell if the PLS already knows what he is going to do with this tract, and is using this as training for his SIT, or if he is unsure on his boundary decision for the tract.?ÿ
Mark,?ÿ
Adjoiner deeds are no help. The problem with trying to use the line of Sylvester is that this parcel came out of the middle of the land of Sylvester. So at the time the lot was created Sylvester owned all around this parcel except for the road, tying the direction to the stake.
So it appears that this vague description was used to sever the land from the Sylvester tract?
In that case, I would lay this out in such a way to give deference to my tract in regards to the improvements.
In other words, your tract owner had reason to believe they own what they did.?ÿ If there is a reasonable way to make those improvements fit the math of the description, I would do so.
If after a thorough search you find nothing to tie this down, see if you can put the record dimensions on the ground in such a way that there is no encroachment.?ÿ Apparently no one cares much about where the parcel is otherwise, if there is no occupation than the well and septic field.
Bill,
?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿHow do you know on one cares? Since they are getting a Survey someone cares. He said both tracts have dwellings. Sounds like 3 tracts are involved which can mean three different Survey Companies may be called. The problem with just surveying by occupation is that the next Surveyor may find the corners. If you fit the back of tract to the Well and Septic field then in the front part of the tract you may be causing a problem.?ÿ
?ÿ
I see many descriptions like this in northern?ÿNY, a colonel state like Maine.
The point of beginning?ÿis clear and should be easy to define.
The 728' property lines are both parallel?ÿto the road, that shouldn't be hard to figure out.
The 200' property lines are parallel and run northerly and southerly.
Try looking along the 200' lines for any blazed trees, fences, stone walls, old wire, old posts, etc. Start your search by going perpendicular to the road.
Have you thoroughly?ÿsearched along these lines?
Calling for a stake or anything is a step up from most of what I deal with that doesn't call for anything, just bearing and distance from a point not marked either. Real popular bearings are north, east, south and west.
Depending on the environment and wood type a stake may be completely invisible upon first glance yet still memorialize the corner.?ÿ Dead manufactured wood in the air quickly rots away, but wood underground could last forever.?ÿ Here's how to search for old stakes:
You must have a good estimate (+-20') for your search coordinate, otherwise searching could stretch into a day's work.?ÿ Magnetic locators and prods won't work.?ÿ Remove all vegetation, logs, rocks, etc. by hand, then use a soft tined leaf rake to remove all duff till you get down to bare soil.?ÿ Use a sharp flat bladed shovel (grain shovel works well) with the blade acting like a road grader blade to carefully scrape away soil layer by layer until you've worked down a good 2-3" into mineral soil.?ÿ Work in a circular pattern around your search coordinate until you finally give up because of time and cost constraints.?ÿ The stake will appear either as an oddly rectangular hole?ÿ or if you're lucky it'll be obvious as a fresh wood stump still in its original shape.?ÿ ?ÿIn either case when you reveal a suspicious spot, stop scraping and get on your knees with a spoon & dinner knife and carefully excavate, looking for spongy rotted wood going straight down as opposed to a root or whatever.?ÿ Often you'll find pieces of wood with flat faces and milled corners, or rotted wood of a different species not local to the area.?ÿ In either case, bag what you find and send it to a dendrologist for an opinion.
Realize 50-100 years ago a "stake" was usually a substantial 2"x2" or larger object (we'd call it a hub these days) milled elsewhere and therefore may not be native wood.?ÿ I'm going back 40 years now but was involved in an Indian Reservation Boundary recovery originally surveyed in the late 1800's where cost was no object (two month's fieldwork) and although we only found 5% of the original monumentation, including buried glass containers with charcoal in them, marked stones,?ÿ scribed tree stumps; and a dozen or so buried stubs of redwood stakes (hundreds of miles from the nearest redwood forest) which when recovered by the above technique were accepted as original monuments.
The key of course is getting that search coordinate down to a reasonable value.?ÿ My party chief at the time was a true forensic boundary recovery expert, and kept us vigilant for any sign of?ÿ line, cut dead vegetation, blazes on trees,?ÿ artifacts like tobacco tins, spent cartridges and whisky bottles.?ÿ It was a remote area, and at times I truly felt we were walking in the original surveyor's footsteps nearly 100 years later.?ÿ Of course, if the original survey was fraudulent, all bets are off,?ÿ but you can get a sense of that after a few weeks of diligent recovery effort.
Ive just skimmed through these posts, but it sounds like a classic case to use a Boundary Line Agreement. If no evidence can be found and the boundary line cannot be determined, then an agreement between the parties is probably the best option.?ÿ
