Had to stake a 'tract' of land in [say] Section 29 yesterday. The 1995 'legal' description (a recent water tank) said: [BTW, section numbers and description has been altered to protect the innocent (and guilty as well I suppose)]
“Beginning at a point S61°59'27”W 1640.01 feet from the SW Corner of Section 21, thence South 287.23 feet, West 200 feet, North 287.23 feet, East 200 feet to the POB”
The 'legal' description also stated:
“The basis of bearing for this description is S89°53'53”W between the S¼ Corner of Section 21 and the SouthEAST Corner of Section 21.”
That seemed a little odd, but it says what it says...of course reciting everything from the kitty-corner Section (21), when the tract is in Section 29, is a little strange too...whatever...
We had recovered and tied the 1894 Stone at said Southwest Corner (Section 21) last year, so I sent the crew (2 Senior Land Surveyors and a technician) out there yesterday to 'shoot' the South ¼ of Section 21. Obviously (???) this Corner had been recovered and tied in recent years, so, it should be a piece of cake (despite being on the side of a high ridge [~7400 NAVD88], about a half a mile from nowhere, and situate in a thick stand of Gamble's Oak).
Okay fine...BUT
After 2 hours of probing, digging, scraping, and swearing, they FOUND the Original 1894 Stone Monument, firmly set and in situ.
GREAT, BUT there is no chance, no how, no fricking way, that ANYBODY has seen this monument in at least 100 years! The top of the stone was a good 4 inches under the surface, there was NO INDICATION whatsoever that anybody had even looked for it, been anywhere close to it, and even the deer avoided this thick stand of oak.
They also recovered and the tied the Southeast Corner of Section 21 later in the afternoon (which DID have evidence of recovery), but the question remains;
How do you get a 'basis of bearings' (to the nearest arc-second) between two Corners, when you don't even KNOW where one of them IS?
P.S. Of course IF said 'tract' had ever been monumented, this would all be a moot point, BUT it was NOT!
I REALLY HATE this kind of CRAP!
Loyal
Yes, it really is frustrating working with legal descriptions that were clearly written by non-surveyors (Lawyers, Realtor's, Bankers, Mortgagee lenders, Engineers).
There is no way of ever knowing who created a crappy legal description so that you can contact them since non-surveyors are not required to sign and seal them.
As surveyors, should we make a typo on a legal description, we can be hung out to dry, tarred and feathered or worse lose our license.
The system really is not fair and balanced on this issue.
Writing legal descriptions is an art in itself that can only be mastered by those that have been trained and have years of experience in surveying.
By chance, did they find a dimple punched in that 1894 stone?:'(
It is what it is...being in a state where anybody can write a description makes for a better surveyor to try and figure out what to hold and what to toss in the crapper. All the more reason to work with your state legislatures in drafting an "authorship" law for legal descriptions. At least then you can point a finger to the creator. Even so, some people still create crap with their name on it.
Pablo B-)
Bet that description was written by a Surveyor who had taken some field measurements or sent his crew out to do it. I have seen some poor descriptions written by Surveyors, Title agents, Attorneys, Bankers, Owners and lord know who else. Today Surveyors write most descriptions here and they are doing a better job than they were doing as late as the 70's and 80's but the owners still have the right to write their own descriptions when transferring rights involving their holdings. I wouldn't be afraid of that description, I would expect to look outside of the document for evidence of occupation and location. The description is clear about intent, "a rectangle with 90° corners, one set of opposite sides being 200.00 feet and the other pair 278.23 feet with a water tank and its supporting utilities within the rectangle", probably some water service line easements and ingress and egress easements to review for clues of the only missing piece, that being the exact intended location of the boundary. If the water tank tract was an island within the parent tract when created and remains so, a visit with the owner owner of the parent tract would be in order. Monument the tract and provide a better description calling for monuments and file a survey showing the ties to the GLO in a manor that can be retraced.
jud
> Had to stake a 'tract' of land in [say] Section 29 yesterday. The 1995 'legal' description (a recent water tank) said: [BTW, section numbers and description has been altered to protect the innocent (and guilty as well I suppose)]
>
> “Beginning at a point S61°59'27”W 1640.01 feet from the SW Corner of Section 21, thence South 287.23 feet, West 200 feet, North 287.23 feet, East 200 feet to the POB”
>
> The 'legal' description also stated:
>
> “The basis of bearing for this description is S89°53'53”W between the S¼ Corner of Section 21 and the SouthEAST Corner of Section 21.”
>
> That seemed a little odd, but it says what it says...of course reciting everything from the kitty-corner Section (21), when the tract is in Section 29, is a little strange too...whatever...
>
> We had recovered and tied the 1894 Stone at said Southwest Corner (Section 21) last year, so I sent the crew (2 Senior Land Surveyors and a technician) out there yesterday to 'shoot' the South ¼ of Section 21. Obviously (???) this Corner had been recovered and tied in recent years, so, it should be a piece of cake (despite being on the side of a high ridge [~7400 NAVD88], about a half a mile from nowhere, and situate in a thick stand of Gamble's Oak).
>
> Okay fine...BUT
>
> After 2 hours of probing, digging, scraping, and swearing, they FOUND the Original 1894 Stone Monument, firmly set and in situ.
>
> GREAT, BUT there is no chance, no how, no fricking way, that ANYBODY has seen this monument in at least 100 years! The top of the stone was a good 4 inches under the surface, there was NO INDICATION whatsoever that anybody had even looked for it, been anywhere close to it, and even the deer avoided this thick stand of oak.
>
> They also recovered and the tied the Southeast Corner of Section 21 later in the afternoon (which DID have evidence of recovery), but the question remains;
>
> How do you get a 'basis of bearings' (to the nearest arc-second) between two Corners, when you don't even KNOW where one of them IS?
>
> P.S. Of course IF said 'tract' had ever been monumented, this would all be a moot point, BUT it was NOT!
>
> I REALLY HATE this kind of CRAP!
>
> Loyal
Loyal,
"That seemed a little odd, but it says what it says...of course reciting everything from the kitty-corner Section (21), when the tract is in Section 29, is a little strange too...whatever..."
I have seen it done and done it myself on numerous occasions under certain conditions. I spent a fair amount of time doing tower surveys in remote areas in the middle large government and commercial forest tracts. For the purpose of describing a 200'x200' track in the middle of a tract covering multiple sections I have tied the survey to a set government corner that was convenient rather than recovering controlling corners of the subject section. For that matter, I have actually used NGS triangulation stations. As long I properly document the point of commencement so the next guy can retrace my steps I have done my job.
John
sounds like...
..some of the "work" I have run into lately with a local Electric Co-op client of mine.
They have a nice GIS database from the BLM:
Something like this:
Their procedure for preparing easements and RW was to send a field hand out to the site and map everything with a hand-held mapping grade receiver/ dc. Then they've got some second party software that "writes" the easements. The easements commence at a PLSS corner from the database and then head off on a bearing straight to the POB of the parcel. It's truly real garbage compared to the survey world. I questioned one the field engineers about his section corners. He told me he rarely gets out of the car, unless the dc won't fix. He just gets a shot in the middle of the intersection.
After realizing they weren't really doing anybody any good and were possibly treading on litigious soil, they have retained us to prepare all their RW. So it's a good thing.
Their Arc/GIS personnel are really nice guys, but clueless when it comes to legal principles concerning properties. We are happy to be helping and keeping those "garbage" descriptions from becoming proliferated.
You all be forewarned now. There is "software" out there that can make you job miserable.
You found the original corners! Now you need to find what the other surveyed used, probably some stake or rebar.
Most of the older mountain subdivisions in Utah are not based off the Original GLO corners. They might have found one or two and then blasted the others in. If a guy like Loyal goes looking then this is what happens. A lot of the the originals are still there. Like Loyal stated, never seen or used for the last 100 years.
Sounds like a typo. They meant to the south line of 20. Just a guess.
sounds like...
The local co-op around here uses a compass and wheel to obtain data for their r/w descriptions, which they do in house without the help of licensed surveyor.
How they fall into being exempt from what everyone else has to be accountable for escapes my knowing.
:-O
Wondered, about that also.
Well, if you PLSS guys would start describing what you actually found, held or set, instead of just the SW corner of whatever section or part of, then you would eliminate the doubt.
Probably the good ones do, but I have seen 1000's of recorded survey's where there is no mention of what the heck the guy found.
In the years that I was licensed in the PLSS, I was shocked, disappointed, amazed, etc., that this was common practice. It was just crazy stupid. Yea where I was licensed was a survey recording state (which is a good thing), but when you do not described what you found or set, what is the purpose?
If your going to hold a monument to a corner, describe what that monument to the corner is. Or is there more to it than my pea brain can figure out.
Dang, around here we would be on the red carpet and risking our license if we did not accurately described what we found or set.
Randy
Well, if you PLSS guys would start describing what you actually found, held or set, instead of just the SW corner of whatever section or part of, then you would eliminate the doubt.
What, trying to take all the fun out of our jobs?;-)
Barring the faux pas of the quadrant, we have a great many surveys of which the basis of bearing is quite distant. The note of the BOB will typically state something like this "Bearings are based on North 89°32'44" East along the Southeast line of that 29.00 acres described in deed from Loyal to Kent on April 1, 2001 and recorded in Volume 1234, Page 567 of the Official Records of Cherokee County, Texas", even though I may be working in a different survey (section) than the original survey originated.
Since 2002 most of the BOB's are pretty standard with the only exception being the realization of NAD83 and State Plane zone in the BOB.
It's at least an explanation. 🙂