Dave Karoly, post: 444937, member: 94 wrote: Texylvania Surveyor Kent is essentially saying her "quicky-dicky" Surveyor is most likely substantially correct. Now I've seen everything.
Not really. If the landowner were my client, I'd suggest doing a bit of field investigation to confirm that if the subdivision boundary were adopted as the common boundary that his ownership would actually be enlarged, and then see whether the adjoining landowner would like to enter into a boundary agreement to "settle" the dispute.
I know within a few feet where I'd look for the planted stone at the POB of the aqua-blue triangle and I know where I'd spend an hour with a probe and expect to find the original SW corner of that same tract, but until those come to light, this is all just educated guesswork.
The basic problem underneath this all is that none of the descriptions have been modernized over time, resulting in land being conveyed forever using descriptions from the 1880s and earlier.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the subdivision plat under which the adjoining landowner evidently claims certain boundaries is hardly any marvel of science. Can you see, for example, what might POSSIBLY be wrong with this plat?
Kent McMillan, post: 444939, member: 3 wrote: Let's not lose sight of the fact that the subdivision plat under which the adjoining landowner evidently claims certain boundaries is hardly any marvel of science. Can you see, for example, what might POSSIBLY be wrong with this plat?
That "subdivision map" looks like what we would call a Tentative Map, essentially a glorified sketch used to get entitlements to subdivide the land.
Dave Karoly, post: 444940, member: 94 wrote: That "subdivision map" looks like what we would call a Tentative Map, essentially a glorified sketch used to get entitlements to subdivide the land.
That engineering plan style of subdivision map is what you get when engineers and planners run the show. Topo? Check! Soils map? Check! Utility Poles shown? Check! Oh, what about the evidence that the boundary was based upon? We'd like to show that, but the plat is pretty much covered with engineering data already.
The marvel about that particular plat is that BOTH roads bounding the subdivision are misidentified on it. Schoolhouse Road that is on the West side of the tract subdivided is shown as being on the East side of it, for example, and what is actually known as Schoolhouse Road is indicated as being a certain State Highway, which I believe is another road entirely.
I wish HELP! would come back and post billing information for Kent...or at least acknowledge his work...
DDSM
Dan B. Robison, post: 444942, member: 34 wrote: I wish HELP! would come back and post billing information for Kent...or at least acknowledge his work...
DDSM
LOL! I'm afraid that people only value what they pay well for. Free stuff obviously has no value. Otherwise, why would anyone just give it away?
I see this whole exercise as directed more at the surveyors who may never have considered how deep a dive into the history of an area is often required in the colonial states and Texas to solve many boundary problems. When you deal with these sorts of problems regularly, it doesn't seem that extraordinary to apply the usual tools to some site on the other side of the US near where Andrew Wyeth lived.
Dave Karoly, post: 444937, member: 94 wrote: Texylvania Surveyor Kent is essentially saying her "quicky-dicky" Surveyor is most likely substantially correct. Now I've seen everything.
yup, he may be learning that things are not always black and white like in Texas. Maps are a new thing to him.
Peter Ehlert, post: 444954, member: 60 wrote: yup, he may be learning that things are not always black and white like in Texas. Maps are a new thing to him.
If he knew what he was talking about, that would help too.
This darn engineering and planning document, prepared by a surveyor in a state where they are licensed and educated to prepare engineering and planning documents as well as land surveys, doesn't look like what I think a survey document should look like from my perspective as someone with no experience or education in prepared the document I'm looking at.
Peter Ehlert, post: 444954, member: 60 wrote: yup, he may be learning that things are not always black and white like in Texas. Maps are a new thing to him.
If you mean that somehow the subdivision plat recorded for the adjacent property has magically moved the original boundaries of the school house lots, you'll have to explain why you think that would be. I don't see anything about the descriptions of the two triangles of land that would suggest that they cannot be located with certainty on the ground. In other words, there is most likely a correct answer and a whole bunch of incorrect answers as to where the property actually is. That is just like Texas and evidently not like California. :>
James Fleming, post: 444959, member: 136 wrote: If he knew what he was talking about, that would help too..
I'm just happy he finally feels like he has mastered the CFedS and has now moved on to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 😉
Kent McMillan, post: 444964, member: 3 wrote: If you mean that somehow the subdivision plat recorded for the adjacent property has magically moved the original boundaries of the school house lots, you'll have to explain why you think that would be. I don't see anything about the descriptions of the two triangles of land that would suggest that they cannot be located with certainty on the ground. In other words, there is most likely a correct answer and a whole bunch of incorrect answers as to where the property actually is. That is just like Texas and evidently not like California. :>
Funny, where was that said?
your assumptions about California (and the rest of the Western states) are quite wrong.
But, whatever, we don't need to beat the dead horse.
Peter Ehlert, post: 444968, member: 60 wrote: Funny, where was that said?
Well, how else should one interpret a remark to the effect that in Pennsylvania there is no such thing as a correct answer as to a boundary location ("black and white") as is typically the case in Texas?
Kent McMillan, post: 444874, member: 3 wrote: Last night, I didn't take the time to do as good a job of referencing the subdivision plat that adjoins the old Harmonyville School tracts as can be done this morning. The pinkish-shaded area should be pretty close to where the subdivision is on the ground based upon road pavements and utility poles shown on the plat.
I'm going to say that the original poster may well be ahead of the game to accept the line of the adjacent lot as platted as being the true West boundary of his land.
Wow! Impressive mapping skills Kent. That and a couple coordinates from the button pushing field crew and you got that survey nailed.
paden cash, post: 444966, member: 20 wrote: I'm just happy he finally feels like he has mastered [PLSSia] and has now moved on to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
What is striking about that Pennsylvania problem is that, aside from the statutory widths of roads and the units of length and area, the whole metes and bounds problem could have been in Texas. I had a call just last week from a fellow who was working on locating a tract that was conveyed for a school back in the late 1870s that required knowing where a land grant had been surveyed in 1867 to begin to put it on the ground. The process of deduction was similar.
vern, post: 444972, member: 3436 wrote: Wow! Impressive mapping skills Kent. That and a couple coordinates from the button pushing field crew and you got that survey nailed.
Actually, what that sketch shows is that if a surveyor really wanted to find the stone that marks the South corner of the turquoise-shaded triangle, he'd probe an area about 7.5 ft. SE of where the corner is indicated on the subdivision plat. That looks to me to be the easiest of the four stones to find and, having found it, the rest which fall in roadways should also be locatable.
The 1982 Plat shows Schoolhouse Road being the road that passes the schoolhouse. the area map shows Hill Camp Road as extending North from the intersection. At about that time county planning agencies tried to eliminate roads having multiple names to make the 911 address street address system more rational. One reason I know that was, I was on the advisory board to the Lehigh-Northampton County Planning Commission around 1970. It makes sense that the name Hill Camp Road was chosen for the continuation to the South from Harmonyville. That New Road was most likely a dirt lane that then became a part of the state Highway system. In fact it also may have been referred to as Schoolhouse Road, and was thus so named after that.
As an aside I was born and raised on Kesslersvile Road in Stockertown, PA. From Stockertown the road went East to Kesslersville, and at the end of it was the one room Kessler School House, where both my father and mother attended. That corner was the intersection of Kesslerville Road, Stockertown and Kesslersville Road, Forks Township. Around that time an industrial park was built on Kesslersville Road in Forks Township and truck traffic tried to access it by driving up Kesslersville Road, Stockertown, over a weight restricted bridge and stop at the first house, ours, for directions. My father a Borought Councilman at that time got tired of it and dreaded the day that a heavy truck put Kesslerville Road into the Little Bushkill Creek. Having done ancient deed research in our area, he proposed that Kesslersville Road, Stockertown be renamed Lefevre Road after an early patent holder.
I do find it unusual that the ultimate right of ways in that area are 45' width, per that 1982 plat.
If you are inclined to get the highway maps for L.R. 15131, contact the PennDOT District 6 archivist.
Paul in PA
Kent McMillan, post: 444973, member: 3 wrote: ...The process of deduction was similar.
Evidently, no doubt. Your stellar research provides a good number of pursuable avenues a lay person might consider to properly locate the boundary. But I don't think that's what is in question. Those of us that only possess the professional capability to practice in one state probably only want to know one thing...."does your foot taste the same in Pennsylvania as it does in Texas?" 😉
Paul in PA, post: 444979, member: 236 wrote: The 1982 Plat shows Schoolhouse Road being the road that passes the schoolhouse. the area map shows Hill Camp Road as extending North from the intersection. At about that time county planning agencies tried to eliminate roads having multiple names to make the 911 address street address system more rational. One reason I know that was, I was on the advisory board to the Lehigh-Northampton County Planning Commission around 1970. It makes sense that the name Hill Camp Road was chosen for the continuation to the South from Harmonyville. That New Road was most likely a dirt lane that then became a part of the state Highway system. In fact it also may have been referred to as Schoolhouse Road, and was thus so named after that.
The plat of PARCEL 19-3 WARWICK TOWNSHIP that an engineer prepared in 1991 shows what is now apparently known as S Hill Camp Road as Hill Camp Road, so what you're saying is that S Hill Camp Road had been known as Schoolhouse Road probably got renamed as Hill Camp Road sometime between 1981 and 1991, and the unused name, Schoolhouse Road, got applied to another road? I wonder if they were able to reuse the road signs for maximum Quaker economy. :>
Kent McMillan, post: 444978, member: 3 wrote: Actually, what that sketch shows is that if a surveyor really wanted to find the stone that marks the South corner of the turquoise-shaded triangle, he'd probe an area about 7.5 ft. SE of where the corner is indicated on the subdivision plat. That looks to me to be the easiest of the four stones to find and, having found it, the rest which fall in roadways should also be locatable.
Kent,
Good luck with that. I have never ever even thought to look under a road that has been paved since W.P.A. to look for a stone called for 200 years before that. I have found RR spikes and pipes, but I had sufficient noise from my Schoenstadt to know it was worthwhile. The real joy is having a sound 2' from the current centerline and to begin removing asphalt to find much older yellow paint exactly over the older iron. A stone not in a road is much more likely to have been buried within a 10' wide by 3' high stone/tree row, many of which have been cleaned out to make larger uninterrupted fields.
Kent, don't worry about the taste of your foot, there is enough "wos wit" bacon dressing to make it a tasty treat.
Paul in PA
