What is that little circle on the back side of lot 8?
On note 3, you have an an OPUS solution, should it say and an OPUS solution?
That was a barn that was already there (at least a corner thereof) he wanted me to show on the prelim and I forgot to take it off.
Radar
Yes, you are correct.
What purpose does lot 11 have?
Lot 11, the way it is, would keep the subdivision from being approved around here, otherwise, your plat looks very nice.
The text on lot 11 "county road" touching the line would erk me, I would have to tweak something to make it fit.
Still and all, with a quick glance, it seems to be a very nice plat.
Well, it may be just me, but I can't have lines running through text, I would have have breaks in the lines or smaller text.
My OCD is flipping out.
Dan
> What purpose does lot 11 have?
> Lot 11, the way it is, would keep the subdivision from being approved around here, otherwise, your plat looks very nice.
> The text on lot 11 "county road" touching the line would erk me, I would have to tweak something to make it fit.
>
> Still and all, with a quick glance, it seems to be a very nice plat.
Because of the fact that the property line was already in two existing public roads, we used a lot to dedicate that area between the existing occupied margins to the public which was using it already. Those roads are only by prescription. Lot 11 clears it up to the public. That and it would have been a hassle to have lot owners have to go and get that VERY small piece off of their taxes.
I could have done it another way, but the county and City of Elkhart didn't mind it.
Thanks for the kind words. I've not had the fortitude to do this until Carl got it in the earlier thread.
I still maintain it was a pin cushion, but now he can shoot back. 🙂
Dan
I don't have that problem. 🙂
Yes, lines running through text wouldn't fly around here, the county would not record it like that.
Otherwise, it is a good looking drawing.
Dan
I understand where Carl is coming from, but even if I aggreed with him that the pipe was into the right of way, I still would not have set another corner there.
My perception, Mr. McCabe...
The Landowner/Subdivider has fee title to the center of the County Road.
I presume the County requirements for accepting this plat is for the Landowner/Subdivider to dedicate an additional fee parcel for a Public Roadway.
It could possibly be a Homeowners Association Lot until the time the County accepts the additional r-o-w.
Just my .04' worth
-BDN
Your title doesn't match the heading in your field notes. Title says William Frost Subdivision and field notes say William Frost Survey. Shouldn't the title say W.F. Survey?
I always put the color of the cap that I find or set, so that when the mower, grader, shovel, etc. hits it and renders it illegible, the retracing surveyor will have a good idea that he has found the correct rod/cap, and not a pincushion nearby that may have a different color. It's very easy to add to your legend and description.
Do you normally label the POB? I didn't see any text there.
This is personal preference, but I always, if possible, label the object found or set next to the corner. Sometimes I have used symbols only and labeled in the legend, similar to what you've done. If I'm retracing a boundary, it's nice to be able to glance at the drawing and instantly see what I need to be looking for at the corners.
Kudos to you for posting it.
Most drafting standards frown on leader lines crossing other lines and/or multiple lines, as it leads to confusion.
> Let them rip boys.
Kris, the things that immediately grab me about that plat:
1) It doesn't readily distinguish between the boundary of the tract subdivided and the interior lines created by the subdivision. A simple convention of using a heavier line (say 0.7mm) for the subdivision boundary and thinner (say <0.35mm) lines for the new platted lines would solve that.
2) I doesn't readily distinguish between boundary markers found and placed by you. I personally prefer to see a special heavier symbol used to highlight boundary monuments of record dignity that were used in determining boundaries. After all, the point of the map is in part to exhibit the logic behind the boundary construction without making the next surveyor work for it.
3) In my opinion, better practice would be to note a specific corner at which the relationship between Grid North and Geodetic North is as you give it. For example:
At the West corner of Lot 1, Geodetic Azimuth = Grid Azimuth +2°26'25"
The change in the mapping angle across your example is negligible, but as a general practice, tacking the value of mapping angle quoted to a specific point is the best practice.
4) It isn't clear how the boundary of the 1.0 acre parcel adjoining Lot 10 was determined. Don't you understand a surveyor to be obligated to show the evidence upon which such a determination was made?
Grid Distances?
Note 3: "All distances shown hereon are grid. To get surface distances, divide ..."
Interesting. I guess when your longest lot dimension may not even change by 0.01' going from grid to ground, that is probably okay. Do your planning/zoning people like that?
Note 6: Most places around here will not let you build across a lot line anymore. If you need two (or more) lots, then you replat those into a single lot.
Also, owner consents/certifictes and dedications usually appear in seperate documentation around here.
Grid Distances?
Note 3: "All distances shown hereon are grid. To get surface distances, divide ..."
Amazing - what would cause you you to do this?
Utility Lines
I guess it's also weird to see (from my perspective) utility lines on the plat. We would show easements, but not the actual lines.
Fences too. Unless the boundary line is a fence, probably would not show it on a subdivision plat. Boundary survey plat maybe, but not a subdivision plat.
What is the grey rectangular box like thing going down the middle of the cul-de-sac street?
Kris
Not really a comment but more of a question. At what point do you show the distance as ground? From what I can tell you have about a .10 of difference in 1500'.