There seems to be two very distinct camps on this topic.
Here is the situation. There is a large tract from which a small tract is to be severed, say along one side only. All the preliminary work is done, including finding the outer boundary of the large tract along which the small tract will conform, say along a county road for access purposes. All that needs to be done is set monuments at the corners of the small tract, prepare a description for the small tract and draft the final plat. Here is the crux of the question being asked:
1: Do you develop the description for the small tract, then go out and actually set the monuments, and finally draft the plat?
or
2: Rough out the desired description, go out and set the monuments, precisely locate your opinion of the dead center of said monuments, then write the description to match precisely the field shots and draft the plat?
With the first plan, you know what you intend to do, do it to the best of your ability and then report that you did what you set out to do. With the second plan you know what you intend to do, do it to the best of your ability and report what you did, even if that is 0.01 feet and 2 seconds off of what you intended to do. With the second plan, the final description will almost definitely never include common dimensions and bearings.
So, which do you do and why?
> 1: Do you develop the description for the small tract, then go out and actually set the monuments, and finally draft the plat?
This is what I generally do, because the owner wants to accomplish something specific with regard to lot dimensions in compliance with a local agency requirement. Once in awhile I get a situation in which the owner wants the new parcel to follow some existing feature, in which case I can set the monuments and subsequently document their positions.
I always prepare the "new" description prior to monument placement. This, of course, is after a finalized boundary of the parent tract. The difference between the two you have described seems a little like "splitting hairs". I mean, the outcome should be the same. It doesn't matter if you take the blacktop through town or the river road...when you get to the gin the cotton weighs the same. 😉
Our field procedure is such:
If a pin is to be placed on an existing line, each monument on the existing ends are located at the time of placement of the "new" pin or pins. The recorded location of each end, that day, are used to calculate the 'line' on which the new pins will be set. And yes, there can be a little bit of difference in the locations from one observation (boundary) and the day we set intermediate corners. But in my opinion, it's negligible. And by the way, if there is line of sight, my guys always break a TS out and place these corners on a visually observed line. Call me old-fashioned and the guys grumble a lot, but that's how I want it (breaking out an instrument is so passé !).
One of the reasons I prepare the description prior to the actual monumentation is most of the time around here if you are creating a new parcel there is a municipal interest involved. They require that all their seated members approve things that they know absolutely nothing about before anyone can go about their business.
I have found it is always best to set the monuments first, if only because it turns out I can't actually access that corner so a monument can't be set.
> 1: Do you develop the description for the small tract, then go out and actually set the monuments, and finally draft the plat?
>
> or
>
> 2: Rough out the desired description, go out and set the monuments, precisely locate your opinion of the dead center of said monuments, then write the description to match precisely the field shots and draft the plat?
The third option that the two offered overlooks is that it's always best practice to adequately describe boundary monuments and the only way to reliably do that in virtually all of the areas in Texas I've ever surveyed is to go out and mark the corners and then describe the actual monuments. Otherwise, you're SOL if you go out and discover that there is some object physically occupying the spot where you had planned to place some particular monument. On the same tract, boundary markers can vary from brass tablets in existing concrete, spikes and washers in drill holes in rock, a 48" rod and cap monument driven into soil, to witness monuments set on line a few feet from the corner.
So I always set the monuments before turning out a description calling for monuments set. As for whether to report the position of a monument that may vary by as much as 0.03 ft. from its theoretical, target position, it depends upon the nature of the monument. If it's on the boundary of some existing tract, and the monument is offset 0.02 ft. from the true line, obviously the act of setting a marker slightly off line doesn't move the line, so the theoretical position that is on the line is the best report of the corner.
A Survey Takes Time As Does A Description
The mere act of typing up a description with calls to monuments that have yet to be set does not create the description. That occurs when having edited and revised it, it is printed out, signed, sealed and delivered.
Paul in PA
A Survey Takes Time As Does A Description
> The mere act of typing up a description with calls to monuments that have yet to be set does not create the description. That occurs when having edited and revised it, it is printed out, signed, sealed and delivered.
>
> Paul in PA
Actually, the boundary is not "created" until there is a conveyance.
What I find with some regularity
What I find with some regularity are descriptions that should describe a tract that is a rectangle with some even number, say 200 feet by 400 feet, as the final plan. But, the final description shows one side as 200.02 and the other 199.97 and the other pair of dimensions being something like 400.01 and 400.02 with the relevant bearings differing from right angles by some number of seconds or whatever.
In my opinion, this tells the world that the surveyor is incapable of actually doing anything precisely. That is, "precisely" as observed by a non-surveyor. Hence, every subdivision plat that is kicked out must be suspect as we couldn't possibly get the same number twice.
Applying the same logic, we can't possibly lay out a street right-of-way at any uniform width as our subdivision lines on either side would wander a bit this way and then a bit that way thoughout the length of the plat.
I always WANT to choose No. 2, but the reality is that No. 1 is most convenient.
I like to set the monuments from a working drawing if at all possible, then write the description.