here's my example
1900 80' x ??' lot defined in deed (80' along the water street)
1920 80' x 74' lot conveyed out along water street
1930 water street defined
1940 rear lot conveyed out - description of entire property
1950 rear lot conveyed out - description 80' x 55'
1998 survey results, the distance from water street to the back of the rear lot is 134' no other monuments exist, occupation is well defined and matches the results: rear lot held at 55', excess left to the front lot.
2005 survey by other firm, perimeter matches, depicts rear lot at 60'. other surveyor did not go to the town files for the ZBA site plan.
how deep is the rear lot? 55' or 60'?
[sarcasm]55.04?[/sarcasm]
Exactly as deep as when created in 1940.
Water Street ?
55' for the rear lot.
In my hometown there is a "Water Street" on the map. It is in fact the Little Bushkill Creek and could never be paved, however it may legally meet the requirement for access. Since it is on a filed map one would think it is not movable. However it is questionable if the full 50' came from the subdivided parcel. I would tend to believe the parcel to the North goes to the creek centerline. Fortunately the creek has little changed in this area and nobody wants to drive on Water Street.
At the South end of town I am surveying a parcel that had calls that is hard to determine where they were and the creek has moved in excess of 50' into the P.Q. One adjacent parcel is the municipal sewer plant which is supposed to have concrete monuments which I have yet to find. When the sewer plant was constructed the Borough acquired easements from the P.Q. to discharge into the creek indicating they believe the line to be fixed. It is a long narrow strip useless to the P.Q. farm and after a meeting with the Mayor and Borough Attorney they indicated a willingness to accept title.
Everytime I see Water Street or River Road my senses get very acute.
Paul in PA
> here's my example
>
> 1900 80' x ??' lot defined in deed (80' along the water street)
> 1920 80' x 74' lot conveyed out along water street
> 1930 water street defined
> 1940 rear lot conveyed out - description of entire property
> 1950 rear lot conveyed out - description 80' x 55'
> 1998 survey results, the distance from water street to the back of the rear lot is 134' no other monuments exist, occupation is well defined and matches the results: rear lot held at 55', excess left to the front lot.
> 2005 survey by other firm, perimeter matches, depicts rear lot at 60'. other surveyor did not go to the town files for the ZBA site plan.
>
> how deep is the rear lot? 55' or 60'?
You've stated that the 1998 survey found "occupation well defined" and "matches the results." that tells me the 1998 survey isn't the first survey to have happened. The property has been in existence since 1900, so has seen a century of occupation and use. Just because the first survey record you can find happened in 1998, doesn't mean it's the first survey to have ever happened. The 1998 surveyor was obviously retracing footsteps of an unknown surveyor, as evidenced by the improvements.
There is obvious ambiguity in the title record as to which dimensions should be used, however, the occupation on the ground (apparently) resolves the discrepancy. You also seem to be hinting that the ZBA site plan (whatever that is) may also indicate a similar resolution.
The boundary is most likely where the evidence and the appropriate rules of law have resolved it to be. Need to make a few phone calls to the surveyors?
JBS
The rear lot is not larger enough, if I own it, and too large, if my neighbor owns it. Those surveyors are a bunch of shysters. They couldn't agree on in which direction the sun comes up every morning.
> They couldn't agree on in which direction the sun comes up every morning.
What? I thought the sun went down a night!!??
Now I am confused...
;o)
JBS
The 1998 surveyor is my father. The owner of the front lot wanted to reconstruct and enlarge a garage located 6' from the common boundary where 15' are required. The ZBA Site plan was a site plan to be filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals for a change, alteration or extension for a pre-existing nonconforming structure pursuant to mgl 40a, section 6 often referred to as a Special Permit (misnomer as a special permit is defined in MGL 40a section 9). The client did not want a recorded survey.
A fence stood about 6' from the garage more or less along the common boundary. Now there is a hedge.
The 2005 surveyor used Jr. Sr. rights and based the original property description and the road taking. When I talked to him, he completely dismissed the ZBA site plan because it was not recorded at the Registry of Deeds. 250 CMR section 6.01 clearly states that research for an original or retracement survey shall include research from any and all sources, public or private. He also dismissed the road taking argument stating that usually there is a taking, not a release of land.
Seeing a structure less than 7 years old would send me to the Town to see the site plan used to permit the same. Especially when I found the current occupation to be about 5' off from my solution.
To make matters worse, the owners of the rear property filed for a 'special permit' to reconstruct the house. They obtained approval to reconstruct the house 5' from the common boundary. Looking at the as-built, the other surveyor certified to the foundation. The house was built with about a foot of cantelever and was 4' from the common boundary.
Probably more information than anyone needs. It's one of those that haunts my quiet thoughts and when I hear about contacting the other surveyor, I think about the times that has failed. It's just like mediation: anyone ever been part of a successful mediation? I have never been. I have been part of a successful surveyor-surveyor conversation.
> It's just like mediation: anyone ever been part of a successful mediation? I have never been.
You nedd to take JB Stahl's mediation class, you will be saying everyone is successfull......:-)
I was part of a mediation over a 40b (affordable housing development)
There were 3 parties. Two of us were there 10 minutes early. The third party showed up 2-1/2 hours late and angry. They had no right to be angry, they were late. They would not budge on any consideration other than donation to conservation. The day was a complete waste of time and money for my client.
I could see mediation working when reasonable people are involved. When reasonable people are involved, there is no need for mediation. Therefore, mediation will fail more often than work. I like Catch-22s and cyclical logic.
>It's just like mediation: anyone ever been part of a successful mediation? I have never been. I have been part of a successful surveyor-surveyor conversation.
I've been involved in a number of mediation sessions under a complete array of settings. Everything from informal (sitting around the kitchen table) to formal (in the courtroom, testifying on the record, with the judge in his robes). I've only seen one mediation fail. That was because the developer insisted that his survey was right (hadn't discussed it with the surveyor, but his plat was 'approved'), that the neighbor was wrong, and they would not budge. No negotiation possible. That lawsuit is still moving forward.
Mediation is always the best alternative and surveyors have a much greater role in the settlement process than they're aware. Mediation training can provide a surveyor with a variety of tools that will enhance their business. It's a wide open market for those who want to learn how to market their services.
JBS
PS A successful surveyor-surveyor conversation is a form of mediation.
> The third party showed up 2-1/2 hours late and angry. They had no right to be angry, they were late. They would not budge on any consideration other than donation to conservation.
I know who these people are, they think they hold all the cards. The trick is; showing them that they don't....
:good:
> .... They couldn't agree on in which direction the sun comes up every morning.
Hel-l, forget the metaphor, (which way the sun comes up), Litterally: try getting surveyors to agree which way north is, or how wide a boundary line is, or whether the 'south 40' is 40 acres or not.
😀
Why would you give the front lot 79 feet and the rear lot 55, when the front lot is senior, and the deed for the front lot calls for 74' deep?
Were the lots in common ownership at the time of the 1950 conveyance?
If not, then the previous conveyance, if i read correctly, conveyed the whole property, 'excepting' what was conveyed previously, so, the front lot should hold the 74' and the rear lot be 60'...
Note, I don't recall this problem, therefore I am not the other surveyor!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
note to others: spledues and i practice in the same general area of Cape Cod...
That's what I get too. The 1940 and 1950 conveyances apparently conveyed only the remainder, that which remained after the 1920 conveyance created the front lot. The 1920 conveyance defines the line in question, no?