Hello all. Long time lurker, first time poster. I'm hoping to get my SIT in a year or two after many years in the field and a few in the office. I'm in a New England (Colonial) state, and the firm I work for does work in several of them. I'm writing this now because of some confusion I'm having about the use of a particular law in Massachusetts that's often cited on plans with regard to road sidelines. It's called Chapter 86, Section 2, and it states the following:
If buildings or fences have been erected and continued for more than twenty years, fronting upon or against a highway, town way, private way, training field, burying place, landing place, street, lane or alley, or other land appropriated for the general use or convenience of the inhabitants of the commonwealth, or of a county, city, town or parish, and from the length of time or otherwise the boundaries thereof are not known and cannot be made certain by the records or by monuments, such buildings or fences shall be taken to be the true boundaries thereof.
This law is often cited when a surveyor does work along a roadway that does not have an "official" layout, and therefore does not have any monuments that were placed to specifically define the road, but stonewalls or fences have been built along the roads and have been there for many years (over 20), and in the case of most stonewalls several hundred years. The use of this cite in these situations is common, and I have no problem with that. My confusion is the result of two plans, both in the past year by two different surveyors who each cited the law, but who did not have any stonewall or fence along the road. They merely stated that the sideline was taken to be a rod and a half from the center of the traveled way. My question: is this a proper cite of this law? It seems clear to me that it is not, but I wanted to get the opinion of others with much more experience.
Another very odd thing that each of these surveyors did on their respective plans was to establish circular curves for these road sidelines when the road course changed, instead of angle points, as is the common practice with ancient ways. Any thoughts on this?
Thanks much! I'm really looking forward to your replies.
I think the first thing I would do is contact the surveyors and ask them for their input. Maybe they have more evidence or some other reason for doing what they did that didn't make it onto the plat.
Lots of Nor'eastern'er here. Don, Perry, and some others I can't recall right now (Tigers won so I'm geeked). Plus I hate the Yankees, Sox of any color, and even them Ray bastards.
But in reality Eric, I do recall the namesake from the former RPLS site, with all true regard.
Go Red Wings. Go Lions.
.... opps, now what was the question. I'm sure one of us over educated surveyors can answer it....
...however the contrary can be shown...
Oh yea, did I mention - Go Wings!!!!
Maine has a similar but somewhat less comprehensive statute. It sounds to me like the surveyors you mention are rather clumsily using an essentially irrelevant statute to defend the practice of simply assuming a r/w line. Which in turn is done to avoid the (often fruitless and time-consuming) research and off-site field work that's usually necessary to recreate ancient r/w lines. I think assuming a r/w line is defensible in some situations but no, I don't think the statute you cite sounds like the right defense. Wouldn't be surprised if it's some sort of "boilerplate" language they put on all of their plans.
>
>
>
My confusion is the result of two plans, both in the past year by two different surveyors who each cited the law, but who did not have any stonewall or fence along the road. They merely stated that the sideline was taken to be a rod and a half from the center of the traveled way.
I'm not up on the laws, but if there is NO layout for the road and no physical evidence along the ROW line, .... What other choice do you have but locate the road centerline, and offset it by half of the record ROW width?
Maybe there is no "Record R/W Width". Maybe they are patronizing the patron saint of surveyors: "Our Lady of Assumption".
Maybe off the given site, (down the road a piece, fer ye southerners!) the width he is showing, fits some local occupation.
Just ramblin'.
~ N
Most Roads Are Not Simply Appropriated
So before the statute can apply there must be a fence or wall and you must prove that the road was not created by some other means, that is it has no officially or legally written right of way width.
As a first suggestion I suggest to obtain and read a variety of original patents to see what claims the Sovereign has to roads.
Then go to the archives and read the "Road Return" books.
There is a possibility that the municipality could claim "Slander of Title" against said surveyors.
It is very time consuming and expensive to prove something does not exist, which these surveyors may have claimed on a whim.
Paul in PA
nate
> Maybe there is no "Record R/W Width". Maybe they are patronizing the patron saint of surveyors: "Our Lady of Assumption".
>
> Maybe off the given site, (down the road a piece, fer ye southerners!) the width he is showing, fits some local occupation.
>
> Just ramblin'.
>
> ~ N
assume 50' and hope for the best. when asked for the actual location of the row line be evasive. those roads will migrate over time. the crack in the old concrete road don't line up withe the yellar line'. mumble something about prescriptive rights and parol evidence from and deceased surveyor. quote obscure court cases and rules. pretend to get an important cell phone call and quickly drive away.
Maybe they are just pointing out that the boundaries are now certain, so stay within them. This is notice that no fences or buildings existed at the time of the survey, so the record (or statutory) width was given to the improvement.
I don't think it's a misuse of the cite. If it's as common as you say that right of way lines are bounded by houses, fences, walls; it might be a common misconception in the eyes of the public that they can build and the line will change to the improvement. Putting the law on the face of the map should cure any misconceptions the user of the map may have.
It is possible that adjoining sections of the road have clearly existing occupation evidence and their determination of the particular stretch merely perpetuates the same width as the established sections on either or both sides of their surveys.
Also remember that, after 1783 when our gov't was established, the 'Kings Writ' was no longer controlling and many 'boundaries', including the boundaries of the states that were colonies, were finalized by 'common agreement' in such a manner that the 'original kings grant' no longer applied.
Richard Schaut
nate
🙂 ~ Nate
Thanks for all your help and opinions!
