Just set more substantial monuments...
clearly this whole debate could have been avoided if only he set a 'dig in' monument instead of driving in an iron rod or rebar.:-P
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
> > Actually 0.14 makes quite a bit of difference along some right of ways in Texas.
> >
> > Believe me I have seen many municipalities, TXDOT, and for that matter the railroad enforce their right of way, and it has not been pretty for some land owners.
>
> Yes, it would be a serious mistake to assume that some administrator of the State's interest in the land of the highway would always be willing to turn a blind eye to even a small encroachment.
The line monumented in the field is what holds, not some imaginary mathematical line on paper. All surveyors measure differently, that's why we set physical monumentation. If the measurements hold, there is no reason to set monumentation. Survey measurements are theoretical, they are not true.
Sorry FL/GA PLS,
It was intended for the original post. My apologies.
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
> The line monumented in the field is what holds, not some imaginary mathematical line on paper. All surveyors measure differently, that's why we set physical monumentation. If the measurements hold, there is no reason to set monumentation. Survey measurements are theoretical, they are not true.
Carl said that he was able to establish the right of way line by monumentation. Since he established the senior line, why would you put an angle/bend in the line by going to a pipe that he had already determined was not on the senior line.
Why would you hold the pipe over an apparently established and monumented senior line?
This is just basic surveying fundamentals.
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
> The line monumented in the field is what holds, not some imaginary mathematical line on paper.
It sounds as if you may have some other fact situation in mind than the one that Carl described. In his example, the boundary of the right-of-way was controlled by a certain set of monuments of which the pipe was not one. Hardly a novel situation.
The pipe was placed after the right-of-way was originally surveyed, evidently, and not not by anyone with any authority to alter the State's ownership of the land conveyed to it. Nothing odd or unusual there, either.
So what your position amounts to is that the original conveyance by which the State acquired its paramount title can be unilaterally modified by the mere act of a private surveyor working for a private adjoining landowner driving a pipe inside the boundaries of the land conveyed to the State. That doesn't even pass the laugh test, so how could a surveyor give that as his or her rationale in court with a straight face?
Paul, if I recall the circumstances, the adjacent point was set based on proration using centerline monuments instead of the block corners, since he never established a bearing for the intersecting centerline (to the north?). In other words, his monument was set by an inappropriate method (in my opinion)and therefore, its location is questionable.
When you did your block survey for your ROS (and established a bearing on the northerly street), did you calc/prorate from the block corners to see what the alternate position would have been if prorated from the block corners taking into account the intersection angles?
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
> > The line monumented in the field is what holds, not some imaginary mathematical line on paper.
>
> It sounds as if you may have some other fact situation in mind than the one that Carl described. In his example, the boundary of the right-of-way was controlled by a certain set of monuments of which the pipe was not one. Hardly a novel situation.
>
> The pipe was placed after the right-of-way was originally surveyed, evidently, and not not by anyone with any authority to alter the State's ownership of the land conveyed to it. Nothing odd or unusual there, either.
>
> So what your position amounts to is that the original conveyance by which the State acquired its paramount title can be unilaterally modified by the mere act of a private surveyor working for a private adjoining landowner driving a pipe inside the boundaries of the land conveyed to the State. That doesn't even pass the laugh test, so how could a surveyor give that as his or her rationale in court with a straight face?
Kent,
I had given up on this little exercise because I couldn't believe the answers. But, I want to thank you for taking up my cause, because you can actually read what I was trying to say. Some additional/clean-up facts. R/W laid out/monumented in 1940±. 4 of 6 Monuments are tight to plans (0.08') at 1100'+. The two that I am directly between, I held one and the next falls about 0.06' off, across the back. VDOT monuments are 6x6 concrete, held at the back/center. Or behind the center letter if at the intersection of 2 R/W lines. The parcels were created/marked in 1958±. Resurvey done in 1991 on adjacent parcel. I found all monuments to be within 0.02' of that plat. This is not some secondary route without plans, and as you said, Virginia holds and defends their property (and fee r/w property) as senior to everything. Now maybe I should have added some of these facts, but I just assumed some of them would be assumed. My mistake.
Carl:
I usually don't pose questions like this for fear of getting flamed. You had the courage to do so, and now we're ALL discussing your situation and learning from it. Please don't be offended. I commend you for posting this; most of us don't dare to do so.
Have a great weekend.
Did I pincushion? - Dennis
> Paul, if I recall the circumstances, the adjacent point was set based on proration using centerline monuments instead of the block corners, since he never established a bearing for the intersecting centerline (to the north?). In other words, his monument was set by an inappropriate method (in my opinion)and therefore, its location is questionable.
Yes. That is correct.
> When you did your block survey for your ROS (and established a bearing on the northerly street), did you calc/prorate from the block corners to see what the alternate position would have been if prorated from the block corners taking into account the intersection angles?
Yes I did check prorate and his tag hit's it, but what I have not posted yet was the occupation along that line. His survey places a sideyard wall completely within the north lot (Lot 15). My survey places the wall back to the original situation that both parties had previously agreed upon, common wall.
Aside from that, proration is a last resort method. Ignoring the tract intent and using a proration method is not a good idea.
If other monuments had existed in the block the survey would have been different. The c/l of Mountain would have still needed to be recovered, but the location of the lot line would most assuredly been prorated in place between existing monuments of weight, which in my opinion, are tagged ones of age.
Proration has it's place, just not here.
I was hired to establish the common line. To just accept what is there would have been a very unprofessional way of doing the survey.
In 2010, I think 95% of the surveyors prorate, collect the check, and move on down the road.
> Carl:
> I usually don't pose questions like this for fear of getting flamed. You had the courage to do so, and now we're ALL discussing your situation and learning from it. Please don't be offended. I commend you for posting this; most of us don't dare to do so.
> Have a great weekend.
I took it pretty rough at first, but there are two sides to that... I see I didn't adequately present all the pertinent facts... and disbelief of what people would do. I still stand by what I did though. I am NOT shaken in that stance.
Thank you.
> I took it pretty rough at first,
Haha Carl. I have been in the flames with these guys since 2002..trust me when I say that after 5 years or so the fire just does not burn anymore :{:
Carl. I'm in full support of the way you handled this.
One problem on any BBS is that it is hard to present all the facts that we, personally, know on any of our jobs. Thousands of details and such that can not be easily presented when posting about our work.
The dates were very important and that is what swings my decision towards your final solution.
Deral
PS_Paul. I've always enjoyed your posts on your projects. I will keep your secret that you only use the Beer Leg as your personal spell/plat checker. I'm surprised more solo guys do not take advantage of the extra eyes. 🙂
Yes.
[flash width=480 height=385] http://www.youtube.com/v/jbjzKWKir5Q?fs=1&hl=en_US [/flash]
> I'm surprised more solo guys do not take advantage of the extra eyes. 🙂
Best review is a peer review Deral :good:
Did I pin-cushion?
Yes, justifiably so.
:coffee:
Yeah you pincushioned. Carl, I'm not saying what you did is wrong, I can respect why you did it. The problem is, we get hung up on certain concepts. I have two ROW points, it HAS to be a straight line in between right? Who says so? Put a little bend in the line, thats not the end of the world.
Its the same thing on section lines. You have two monuments 1/2 mile apart, it HAS to be a straight line in between them right? So the stone this surveyor set in 1880 is 3 feet off line. I can't use it and need to set a new monument right? I say no you don't have to set a new monument, put a bend in the line and call it good, but thats just my opinion.
Yes you did. The issue of if it was proper aside the problem it creates is that you leave behind uncertainty to settle where there was none previously. It makes the profession look silly. If you feel you have correctly identified the corner than get permission by the coterminous landowners to clear up the dispute by removing the offending mark. I always hear reasons for not removing marks like its against the law. It may be against the law to remove a corner monument but you have identified that this was not a corner monument. Closing corner monuments are only valid in certain circumstances for closing PLSS corners, nowhere else.If you are certain enough to stand behind your location than finish the job. One mark per corner is the professional service. Anything more is unprofessional. IMO The next surveyor that comes through can get permission to remove your mark and replace it 0.01 away. The state codes need changed so that these virtual locations are monuments on paper only. Then those unsuspecting owners would not rely for years on monuments that were incorrectly located.
> > I usually don't pose questions like this for fear of getting flamed. You had the courage to do so, and now we're ALL discussing your situation and learning from it. Please don't be offended. I commend you for posting this; most of us don't dare to do so.
> > Have a great weekend.
>
Carl,
One thing I've learned about posting on these boards, is Yes, thick skin is sometimes needed.
-- THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONESTY --
And thanks for your courage to post, unlike many who just sit there in their whitie tighties just waiting to jump on someone and flame folks who are trying to have civil discourse.
What I don't understand is that if the highway monuments control the R/W, why did you hold one and say the other one is off by 0.06'? If there is a little wiggle in the record v. measured locations of the highway monuments, I'd say hold the monuments. Of course, that probably only affected the position of the point you are establishing by a couple of hundredths, so it's not the main issue.
That issue aside, I think you did the right thing. The pipe defines the private property line and the highway monuments define the highway right of way. I wouldn't want to tell my client to use the pipe and build a parking lot or whatever to the pipe location or on a measured setback from the pipe and have to explain to the State why the parking lot was out in their road by 0.14'. The bigger that number gets above 0.14' the more people would probably agree with that. 0.14' would probably not result in piles of concrete as much as 1.40' would.
> The pipe defines the private property line and the highway monuments define the highway right of way.
I like that....:good:
