Jerry , that is a good example of the contrary being shown. I think that’s what Curtis Brown was getting at when he said the R/W monuments may hold if they differ from the plat dimensions.
My take on a standard residential subdivision road, dedicated to the public on the plat at 60 feet, where the found lot corners zig and zag between 29 and 31 feet from centerline, is that centerline ultimately has to be retraced using a logical scheme evaluating the monuments on either side to determine the true centerline and resultant R/W lines.
Reason being is that the road centerline is the true boundary line between lots across the road from each other. That boundary is encumbered by a public easement so exclusive that the underlying owners don’t even pay taxes on it. In a few cases the centerline was monumented at road intersections (the true block corners) but hereabouts those monuments are usually long gone and the witness corners to the centerline - the lot corners - are all that’s left.
If the road were vacated then the lot lines extend to the centerline. However, if you connect the monuments on one side of the road and offset those segments 30 feet, there will be gaps and overlaps with the lines though the monuments from the opposite side offset 30 feet. Was the intent of the subdivision to have a boundary that automatically gaps and overlaps itself when the road is vacated? I think of lot corners at the R/W as a series of witnesses to the centerline and also closing corners for the lot lines on the R/W line. I wouldn’t set 2 sections corners from 3 bearing trees that don’t all fit together, I’d hold two (or maybe one, depending...) using the professional judgment I’m licensed for, and document the reasons I did what I did in the public record.
That said, for someone setting a missing front pin on a lot on a quarter mile stretch of road tangent it isn’t practical or economical to tie 60 corners along the road to establish the centerline. But it’s a fools errand to not check some of the surrounding R/W monuments to make sure the two R/W monuments you prorate through to set the missing corner aren’t rogue. We have a lot of subdivisions where surveyors found the two corners in back, turned record angle and set the front pins at record distance. Finding some undisturbed original corners on the R/W often confirms suspicions about the validity of these.
Great question Paden, and I think you are already on the right track... land surveyors need to get over the notion that nominal Right-of-Way widths are sacrosanct.
I have always beleived that the notion that they are was extrapolated from the correct procedure of holding the even right-of-way width when prorating between found lot and block monuments across a road. As Adamsurveyor mentioned above, that is when you hold a nominal right-of-way width. Also, when surveying in areas where monumentation and evidence such as fencing is rare, that is when you run a best-fit centerline and offset half the nominal width on each side. The nominal width would prevail then as there is nothing to oppose it.
For most other scenarios, and perhaps especially in downtown urban areas, it is simply following sound land surveying fundamental procedure to mostly accept the found monumentation as the best evidence to re-trace the original right-of-way line which is, after all, just another property line. And yes, this includes taking long held occupation under consideration, as it is often the best evidence of the perpetuation of monumentation which now may be long gone.
This approach will leave you with right-of-way widths varying from say 67.36' to 63.50' (for a 66' R/W). As a profession we need to stop letting that strike fear in our hearts. It is the normal, logical result of following sound land surveying fundamental procedure.
The land owners cannot go about living peacefully nor can they conduct their businesses without having certainty that they are doing so in the right place. They need the certainty that someone representing the government is not going to show up and inform them that a foot and a half of their commercial building is going to have to be jack-hammered off. They are looking for us to provide them that certainty. That is what is exchanged when they hand us a check.
The right-of-way line is just another property line. There is nothing holy about it, except that it cannot be adversely possessed across. And, no, Virginia, the fact that a right-of-way line deviates from a nominal width by a foot here and there does NOT constitute adverse possession.
Just don't get me started about state R/W monuments....
Have a good one,
Stephen
Great Answer Mike
> .....the road centerline is the true boundary line between lots across the road from each other. (Case by case of course) That boundary is encumbered by a public easement so exclusive that the underlying owners don’t even pay taxes on it. 😛 In a few cases the centerline was monumented at road intersections (the true block corners) but hereabouts those monuments are usually long gone and the witness corners to the centerline - the lot corners - are all that’s left.
Great Point Mike and I'm totally in agreement with what you said. Additionally, as you eluded to, it's our prof judgement to review all evidence on a case by case basis so there is no real hard and fast answer.
I've heard and held a number of different views over the years. I was taught, as many were, that the public right of way is, somehow, a sacrosanct strip that cannot be yielded. I've also seen many, many, court cases since that carry the contradictory viewpoint as common law.
Basically, I've come to the simple realization that the sideline of the public right of way is a boundary. As such, boundaries are to be retraced. The only way to retrace any boundary is to gather the evidence that established the location of the boundary on the ground. It's not a process that allows us to sit back in an office, ignore the physical evidence or historical evidence, while making blank and unsubstantiated claims that "a 66' street is always 66'."
Retrace the boundaries where they have become established, then measure the width when you're done. It'll likely be pretty close to 66'. If it's close enough to average out the evidence so I can call it a 66' street (which it usually is), I'll call it a 66' street. If I wanted to get all anal about it, I could place a bend at every lot corner along the sideline, but who really cares (other than we surveyors). It's a freaking boundary, not a control survey.
If the sideline has never been established, and you're the first one to place your monuments along the boundary, then do so with your best good faith (bonafide) effort. After a couple of generations of natural deterioration, some surveyor is sure to come along later and call your monuments off by a tenth here, or two tenths there, as they attempt to hold their precious 66' gold standard anyway.
Remember... retrace.
JBS
"I have come across the slight discrepencies between blocks all the time over the years- personally, I end up holding the monuments that I find and accept -I could be out there tying in the world trying to get a flat 60' ROW..."
JB - I think you said exactly what I previously posted - but yours sounded so much better;-)
Paul
I do realize that you have a problem following a rational thought process so I guess I must point out that my reference is to the 'record' distance, and to the 'rules of evidence' which specifies the guidance for judges and lawyers evaluation of the comparison with the measured and 'record' dimension.
And for your facetious last question, the '.5 units' allows '+/- 0.25' of the specified units.
Case law is not a reliable guide, especially since the chief justice of SCOTUS in 1984, stated that the US legal system in no longer acceptable for a civilised society. (See that years 'Annual Report on the State of the Judiciary')
Richard Schaut
PS I mistyped a demension in my post above, S/B 57.75', sorry.
RS
R. S. You Have A Problem With Math
Assuming a 4 Rod Road and your +/- 1/2 rod, the range is 57.75' to 74.25'.
Measuring tolerances go both ways.
However 4 Rod Roads were never described as 4 rod wide except in the abstract. Instead the centerline was described in rods and links, with the road 2 rods on either side. Any rational individual reading such a description understands those 2 rods to be 2 rods 0 links each side of centerline, with 1/2 link being the standard tolerance. Otherwise a 24 rod section length of road would be less precises than the subsequent 32 rod 12 link long section.
That judges are gullible and accept so called facts from so called experts, merely perverts the truth.
Paul in PA
Well put John.