WA-ID Surveyor, post: 325208, member: 6294 wrote: I used to work under the assumption that all roads received there full platted designated width, but have since changed my thoughts on this, especially in newly platted subdivisions. Original monuments hold, if the pins set at the row happened to be set 58.8 feet apart....the city has 58.8 feet or right of way.
Correct. It has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with "adverse possession", "acquiescence", "kings" or "the crown". The principles involved are the same principles that we use when we honor an original GLO stone that wasn't set in its "planned" position. Do we move a 1/4 cor. stone because it may give the "crown" only 2620 feet instead of the required and reported "2640"?
Brian Allen, post: 325249, member: 1333 wrote: Correct. It has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with "adverse possession", "acquiescence", "kings" or "the crown". The principles involved are the same principles that we use when we honor an original GLO stone that wasn't set in its "planned" position. Do we move a 1/4 cor. stone because it may give the "crown" only 2620 feet instead of the required and reported "2640"?
Hey just move that original monument, after all doesn't it "fit". You know the landowner is really going to notice that .3' to .5' and how can you sleep at night knowing the chi square test failed..............
And when you find original monuments at 59.7 or 60.15 MOVE THEM!!!! Or better yet set one next to it,,,,,,,,,,or even better show how far they are "off" from the "correct" position.................
MightyMoe, post: 325330, member: 700 wrote: Hey just move that original monument, after all doesn't it "fit". You know the landowner is really going to notice that .3' to .5' and how can you sleep at night knowing the chi square test failed..............
And when you find original monuments at 59.7 or 60.15 MOVE THEM!!!! Or better yet set one next to it,,,,,,,,,,or even better show how far they are "off" from the "correct" position.................
Here's the rub guys. Our decisions must be founded in law to be defensible. Throwing out anecdotes (ripped completely out of context) and saying things with a more smart Alec tone won't change that. Sticking your tongue out, putting your thumbs in your ears and waving your fingers has the same effect. Zip, zilch, nada.
Idaho has a few dozen pages of fine print Statute changes on Rights of Way. Some are great, others dumb as dirt. They still have to be considered when performing a boundary survey.
My point (and one often missed in our Profession ) is that you cannot memorize 2 or 3 or even a hundred rules and Survey by flow chart. A trained monkey can do that and we are better than that.
And if you're waiting for me to apologize for understanding measurement science and entry level College math, don't hold your breath.
thebionicman, post: 325339, member: 8136 wrote: Here's the rub guys. Our decisions must be founded in law to be defensible. Throwing out anecdotes (ripped completely out of context) and saying things with a more smart Alec tone won't change that. Sticking your tongue out, putting your thumbs in your ears and waving your fingers has the same effect. Zip, zilch, nada.
Idaho has a few dozen pages of fine print Statute changes on Rights of Way. Some are great, others dumb as dirt. They still have to be considered when performing a boundary survey.
My point (and one often missed in our Profession ) is that you cannot memorize 2 or 3 or even a hundred rules and Survey by flow chart. A trained monkey can do that and we are better than that.
And if you're waiting for me to apologize for understanding measurement science and entry level College math, don't hold your breath.
My opinion is to accept the original corner, every monument in the subdivision is likely to be "out" some amount. Holding on to the math is not something that is protecting the public, they just don't care, what the landowner wants is stability. Moving corners will never stop otherwise and the law has always understood that.
MightyMoe, post: 325347, member: 700 wrote: My opinion is to accept the original corner, every monument in the subdivision is likely to be "out" some amount. Holding on to the math is not something that is protecting the public, they just don't care, what the landowner wants is stability. Moving corners will never stop otherwise and the law has always understood that.
And on that we agree to a point. The way this was presented seemed pretty dang simple. An obvious blunder on unoccupied lots should not force owners to spend thousands to clean it up. Simple problem, simple solution. We aren't talking about adjusting for my different error in measurement. This was an obvious large error for all the world to see. It would hurt zero people to fix it. Suddenly it's presented as a 'math over monuments' issue and I called crap.
thebionicman, post: 325339, member: 8136 wrote: Here's the rub guys. Our decisions must be founded in law to be defensible. Throwing out anecdotes (ripped completely out of context) and saying things with a more smart Alec tone won't change that. Sticking your tongue out, putting your thumbs in your ears and waving your fingers has the same effect. Zip, zilch, nada.
Idaho has a few dozen pages of fine print Statute changes on Rights of Way. Some are great, others dumb as dirt. They still have to be considered when performing a boundary survey.
My point (and one often missed in our Profession ) is that you cannot memorize 2 or 3 or even a hundred rules and Survey by flow chart. A trained monkey can do that and we are better than that.
And if you're waiting for me to apologize for understanding measurement science and entry level College math, don't hold your breath.
Tom,
I certainly hope you didn't take offense to anything I said or how I said it - I was not trying to be offensive.
You are correct in saying that our decisions and opinions must be based on the law. There are plenty of surveying myths floating around our profession that aren't based in the law; we, as professionals, must be able to sort the myths from the truth. I certainly respect your knowledge of measurement science.
All was saying is that, in nearly all cases, the principles used in the retracement of an established and monumented road/street right of way doesn't include AP or acquiescence. The principles involved are usually, common grantor, the doctrine of original monuments, and at times estoppel. I'm currently retracing 2 miles of county road ROW that was a Federal Aid Project in the early 1950's. The ROW was purchased fee simple by the county. The problem is that at this point, I have 4 differing sets of hwy plans (including 2 different project numbers), the deeds, and found monuments. None of which are in complete agreement with each other.
I have two monuments that were set at 33' from centerline when the descriptions and the plans clearly call for 40'. Am I going to cross the 60 year old fence and re-set the concrete monuments 7 feet into a widow's wheat field based solely on the measurements when the ROW was obviously monumented and accepted by all parties (including the county) for over 60 years? Under what statute and/or boundary location doctrine do I have the authority to change what was monumented by the county/state, and accepted by all parties for over 60 years? I haven't found one yet that allows me to do so.
Brian
Brian,
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. The case you describe is a perfect opportunity to correct the record. The exact citation escapes me, but we are allowed to amend rights of way when monuments are set incorrectly and honored for a time. I did 2 plus miles of that here. The difference in the cases should be obvious. A half foot in a subdivision is asking for trouble. When a foundation crew stakes the house twisted into the setback it won't be pretty. There are too many things screaming 'fix me' in the first scenario.
My wife wants matching ink thus summer. She's not going to understand when I start looking at designs for 'IT DEPENDS '...
Thanks again, Tom
Mike Marks, post: 324812, member: 1108 wrote: +1
In modern subdivisions, if there is no confusion whether the public entity (City, County, State) accepted the street dedications, their superior title will hold. A key anno on a subdivision map is the width allocated to the public streets, 60' will hold over all lot corner monuments allegedly intersecting the R/W. I consider them closing corners, accurate for the bearing of the lot line but the lot owner's domain ends 30' from the monumented C/L (however weakly it may be monumented). This is exactly the same issue concerning lot corners which are on the subdivision boundary; the developer cannot sell what he does not own, so all the back lot corners are closing corners against the superior subdivision boundary monuments.It's not a trivial matter; as time passes the R/W owner inevitably widens the road facilities and pushes closer to the line, lot owners who trusted their front lot monuments build right up to them, a stink develops. Not pretty if there's 5 and 10 foot disagreements on older subdivisions (like 1920s coastal lots that have turned into multimillion dollar parcels, with decades old encroachments on a road that's physically dozens of feet from its original location).
My advice? Don't worry, be happy. "Adjusting" lot corners on a R/W line will not affect the location of the king's R/W, they only control the lot line's bearing between adjacent owners. Do not f**ck that up by moving monuments *unless* you can prove that monument is disturbed.
OTOH I've seen ancient dedicated road R/W in high rise downtown situations where because it was just useless dirt in 1880 turn into a situation because of judicial decisions over the decades turn into "Hotel 1" encroaching into the R/W by 5 feet getting that ground. So what was a 30' R/W is now 25' R/W; parking has become a bitch.
Doesn't a Subdivision Plat create ALL of the parcels simultaneously? Wasn't the "subdivision" process concieved to eliminate junior/senior rights? How then can any owner have "superior" title?
Jim in AZ, post: 325375, member: 249 wrote: Doesn't a Subdivision Plat create ALL of the parcels simultaneously? Wasn't the "subdivision" process concieved to eliminate junior/senior rights? How then can any owner have "superior" title?
I agree. Keeps things clean, of course parts of a subdivision will abut to a senior line.
Interesting discussion...I've been working and not sleeping that much, this is the first opportunity to get back here....we recorded showing that our current survey proved agreement with the original subdivisions geometry but called out the two monuments in question. We'll see what the county says. In any event thank you all for taking the time.