AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Funky Plat Dimensions

4 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
775 Views
Deano
(@deano)
Posts: 26
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I'm currently working on a boundary retracement of lot within a subdvisision filed in 1891. The plat is pretty well drafted and the dimensions are easily readable. The west line of the plat is along the west line of the NE1/4NE1/4 and is dimensioned as "1308 3/10' ". Sweet, that's easy enough...
The sum of the lot dimensions is 1308.4'... ok...hmmmm...
The description of the subdivision reads "...thence South one thousand three hundred and eight (1308) feet..." WHAT!?:-S

My measurement along the west line of the 1/16 section is 1308.74' (not bad compared to the 1891 dimension, whichever one you use).

In trying to proportion lots/streets along this line, what dimensions would you use? I'm going with the sum of the lots, all of which are clearly labeled (most at 50', one at 34' and the northern most lot at 34.4'), so no throwing the error at one of them. Streets are 40', 60' and 30'.

I had the title company research the vesting deed from which the owner platted it in 1891, and it calls for the aliquot part of the section (NE1/4NE1/4), no dimensions given.


 
Posted : August 16, 2012 4:17 pm
holy-cow
(@holy-cow)
Posts: 25672
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Before proportioning anything I want to know about all sides of the subdivision, not just one. Hence, get back out there, get all the data, then check back with us.


 
Posted : August 16, 2012 4:55 pm
Scott McLain
(@scott-mclain)
Posts: 782
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I agree with Cow, but... for a 1891 plat.
I do not know how many streets to take out, but it's not going to make enough difference to lose any sleep over.
1308.74/1308.4(50) = 50.013'
1308.74/1308(50) = 50.028'
Going back to the "Sayings of Our Mentors" thread: "Take your pick or use your shovel said the blind carpenter as he picked up his hammer and saw."


 
Posted : August 16, 2012 5:48 pm
Brian Allen
(@brian-allen)
Posts: 1570
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

OH MY GOSH!!! 0.7ft in a 1/4 mile????? Wow! That is dang good. I'd love to find discrepancies that small. I'd, of course, first look for evidence of the 120 year old lot lines long before the word "proportion" would even enter my mind.


 
Posted : August 16, 2012 7:11 pm