paden cash, post: 444980, member: 20 wrote: 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.
Well, there were several questions, the most fundamental of which is whether the bearing of the West line of the turquoise-shaded triangle referred to magnetic North as it presently exists. It's pretty clear that the answer is "no".
The other fundamental question was whether the boundary of the parcel formed by the two triangles was represented even approximately correctly on the Chester County GIS. The answer to that is also pretty clearly "hell no".
The rest are deductions that would have to be tested on the ground, but the odds are very much in favor of the actual corners falling within less than three feet of the positions shown on the sketch I posted. That is what the entire pattern of evidence posted to date would indicate.
Paul in PA, post: 444983, member: 236 wrote: 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.
The simplest way would be to drill a hole through the pavement and probe for the stone in the subgrade. It works fairly well if you have the search area sufficiently small.
One thing we do have in PA is highly skilled dozer operators that ensure that very few stones survive a road building operation.
I do enjoy watching people try to figure out the idiosyncrasies of boundary surveying in Pennsylvania from afar. As one can see, it is quite different from PLSS. And, we have no monumentation or recording rules.
as a county surveyor, I am presented these very questions by both landowners and surveyors on a regular basis. I am not going to try to specifically answer your questions. But, I have been dealing with one situation very similar to the one you describe and it has lingered unnecessarily for 18 years, and counting. 90% of the reason it has not been resolved is due to one antagonistic landowner, but my message is that the RESPONSE by other parties and surveyors has actually prolonged the pain and suffering of numerous individuals.
1. Landowners and county officials habitually look at property rights by reading numbers on a piece of paper, and arguing about the numbers on a piece of paper. If the original deed or subdivision plat has grossly inaccurate numbers - and mine does - then you MUST stop looking at the paper, and try to look at the physical evidence on the ground - or parole evidence - and work backwards - so that THAT information can be accurately stated on the piece of paper. I have watched helplessly while perfectly intelligent county officials waste hours of my life arguing about numbers on a piece of paper that they do not understand. they certainly and fundamentally do not understand when those numbers are erroneous. it blows their minds.
2. Surveyors OFTEN disagree for infinite legitimate reasons - but the ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE A DISPUTED BOUNDARY IS BY LEGAL ACTS BETWEEN TWO LANDOWNERS OF A DISPUTED LINE. The surveyor gives you facts - even opinions - but if there is a material conflict, it can ONLY be resolved by the LANDOWNERS. Often, a careful surveyor can SOLVE the problem, but can not sign on any agreement between landowners.
3. Lawyers have no idea what we surveyors are talking about. They represent their clients in court, a language which they understand. their only objective is to win for their client - whatever definition "win" is. If you think your property rights are being infringed by your neighbor, and if you don't agree with your surveyor (after you have paid him), then you have a civil matter handled first choice by the sheriff.
4. No matter what the situation is, I promise you will not benefit by resolving it in court. Do not go to court unless forced to. there is no such thing as "winning" in court.
John Hamilton, post: 444988, member: 640 wrote: I do enjoy watching people try to figure out the idiosyncrasies of boundary surveying in Pennsylvania from afar.
Slow weekend in Austin. Next weekend is the 47th annual Austin Soy Chorizo Days; Kent will be occupied with his duties as Grand Marshal.
Now, what if.... Just what if.... A PROFESSIONAL surveyor, found those stones? Particularly, at the nw cor? Just what if there is in fact, an obvious stone there, along with old-timer testimony, to corroborate it?
It's ALL professional, (albeit scientific) speculation, until those stones location, and existance is known.
N
Subsurface radar, will eventually be a part of a professional surveyor's kit.
Subsurface radar works good. was on a pipeline job where the contractor had 2 line strikes. so the chief inspector convinced the client to buy a unit. They had a USB port to download the image's to be reviewed by a third party when they did the sweeps. I bet it would work great to find buried stones, As I recall the chief said the unit was about 10,000.00 , wonder how much the price would have to drop to be cost effective?
Dave Karoly, post: 444618, member: 94 wrote: Did you switch "938.98" in the second course with "1693.54" in the fourth course?
Either way, I have good news, every time it's surveyed your property gets bigger! 😉
No, actually the POB is different (end of first course is black oak) and the 1923 description goes in a reverse direction around the tract than the earlier descriptions. The Property was bisected by a railroad in 1905 or so, and then the property north of the RR was sold in 1926. My 8.5 acres was cut out of the south remainder. To this day my deed does not close by 35 feet or so, even though it has been sold 5 times. I spent a lot of time and effort to resolve that, but since nothing was ever set (well, they say "oak stakes" all around in 1948), and there are other ambiguities as well, I have not yet resolved everything. As far as I can tell, a junior subdivision to the east encroaches on me by a pie shape that goes from 0 to 5 feet wide over about 500 feet. The west and south sides are pretty well resolved. The railroad, I have conflicting deeds that indicate I either own to the railroad, or there was a 10 foot wide easement between me and the RR for a tractor to pass to the other side. My side along the railroad is a straight 700 feet in my deed, but the RR has short segments following the top of a cut in that area. And the highway that I front on was given by the county to the state recently, but both deny having any plans, county says they gave them to the state, state says they never got them, so I am not certain as to the width of the highway ROW. It varies along this road. But I do have the RR (now removed) tied down very good due to an old bridge abutment where the highway went under the RR, with stationing on the abutments on the valuation maps.
My deed line is the green line, the RR row is the red line. Of course I believe I own to the railroad, but not 100% certain due to a statement in someone else's deed.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 444994, member: 291 wrote: Now, what if.... Just what if.... A PROFESSIONAL surveyor, found those stones? Particularly, at the nw cor? Just what if there is in fact, an obvious stone there, along with old-timer testimony, to corroborate it?
It's ALL professional, (albeit scientific) speculation, until those stones location, and existance is known.
Yes, I would expect that it would be inevitable that there would be some "old timer" around to testify that some stone was the original one set in the 1870s at the North/NW corner of the two parcels. One would need a Cherokee Psychic, however, to transcribe the old timer's tesimony from the great beyond.
What land surveyors deal with when Polaroid photos of the stone being set in the 19th century are for some reason unavailable, is patterns of evidence and logical inferences from them. In this case, the obvious first step is to actually examine the original deeds by which the tracts were conveyed to make certain that no transcription errors were introduced later. Then, the next task would be to examine the conveyances to the adjoining lands that the tracts call for as adjoiners, such as that of one Jacob Eargood, George Stoneback, William Noble, and Josiah Keim.
If three of the four stones are in fact in public roads, as would definitely appear to be the case, recovering the stones will be difficult and the strategy would I think be first directed toward narrowing as much as possible the area within which the stone was placed. If that area is like parts of Texas, there probably was a time early in the 20th century when land surveyors routinely recovered planted stones in roads and left a record of their positions that is useful a century later. Depending upon how roads were documented, those records may contain some information more useful than just the date of establishment or change and the width of the right-of-way.
For example, the POB of the Eastern triangle "A" is described as "a corner between the hereby granted premises and land of Jacob Eargood". One very plausible interpretation of that is that the POB was a corner of the Jacob Eargood tract, so one line of inquiry would be to identify the evidence from which the likely corner of the Jacob Eargood tract could be located. Does Hill Camp Road running North from the Harmonyville Road run along a line of the Eargood tract, for example? If so, is the centerline of the road immediately North of the Harmonyville Road a likely indicator of that corner? Are there old buildings in place on both sides of the road that would indicate a right-of-way location?
Does the centerline of the Harmonyville Road as originally established follow the South line of the Jacob Eargood tract? If so, that would place the North line of the Eastern triangle "A" at or near the centerline of the Harmonyville Road.
What generated the odd shape of the Eastern Triangle "A" that was plainly granted first if there was not a road in place at the time that the hypoteneuse of the triangle followed? The 1873 map of Warwick Township shows a road on approximately the same allignment as that side of the triangle. The most reasonable conclusion from the partial set of facts in view is that there actually was a road or lane in place along one side fo the triangle and that what is now known as S Hill Camp Road definitely was in place before 1880.
So, the obvious trial construction would place the POB of Eastern Triangle "A" at the intersection of the centerlines of Harmonyville Road and Hill Camp Road running North as a first approximation of the corner of the Jacob Eargood tract. The North line of Triangle "A" would run along that centerline for 6.68 perches to a corner originally marked by a stone and the hypoteneous of Triangle "A" would run S29W (after correction for variation) for 20 perches from that POB.
Since that construction would be found to place the South corner of Triangle "A" approximately on the centerline of S Hill Camp Road the assumption that Triangle "A" was bounded by where the road ran at some early date would tend to hold up.
The West line of Triangle "B" would be constructed preliminarily by running S8E (after correction for variation) for 16.64 perches, which is a line that follows the old evidence of occupation that appears in the photos from 1937 and later. An obvious bit of field investigation would consist of searching the vinicity of that line for evidence of an old fence that may now consist of little more than rotten stubs of fence posts that must be found by probing. That should be sufficient to locate any existing stone at the SW corner of Triangle "B" from which the construction may be further refined using the field evidence uncovered.
The general method is an iterative one. Search for evidence using best estimates from partial set of facts, then refine estimates based upon evidence found, and search again. It's true in Texas surveying and would pretty much have to be in Pennsylvania as well.
John Hamilton, post: 444988, member: 640 wrote:
I do enjoy watching people try to figure out the idiosyncrasies of boundary surveying in Pennsylvania from afar. As one can see, it is quite different from PLSS. And, we have no monumentation or recording rules.
John Hamilton, post: 444988, member: 640 wrote: One thing we do have in PA is highly skilled dozer operators that ensure that very few stones survive a road building operation.
I do enjoy watching people try to figure out the idiosyncrasies of boundary surveying in Pennsylvania from afar. As one can see, it is quite different from PLSS. And, we have no monumentation or recording rules.
A land surveyor with boundary experience has encountered the problems associated with the survey presented here. Colonial or PLSS
Most PLSS Surveyors handle M&B surveys on a frequent basis.
Conflict of deeds, bearing ambiguities, insufficient info regarding monuments and boundary details on plats, lack of title research, hwy/road rights of way information that is not accessible etc
Add a layer of a horrified land owner clicking the panic button about their surveyors.
3-4 hours onsite with a properly prepared job folder with office support is not out of line to survey this parcel. Assuming the crew is experienced, office prep was complete and thorough with available documents. There isn't any info to contest that their files did not contain records to support their work.
A few or more posters mugged them without any foundation except the comments of the SOS post.
Also presumptuous posters recommending legal action is wrong. Unless there is a chance that a boundary agreement can be reached.
First step would be for the poster to request the removal of th brush pile removed and offering to assist.
Next, sitting down with surveyor to discuss their conclusions.
James Fleming, post: 444990, member: 136 wrote: Slow weekend in Austin. Next weekend is the 47th annual Austin Soy Chorizo Days; Kent will be occupied with his duties as Grand Marshal.
Don't forget the gluten-free tortillas..
Alvin Tostick, post: 445014, member: 13000 wrote: 3-4 hours onsite with a properly prepared job folder with office support is not out of line to survey this parcel. Assuming the crew is experienced, office prep was complete and thorough with available documents. There isn't any info to contest that their files did not contain records to support their work.
Well, for starters, the land in question is that formerly owned by Dorothy K. Seel and David J. Knauer, approximately in the position of the same shown upon the subdivision of the supposedly adjacent tract as platted in 1982.
This is a portion of that plat:
You'll note that none of the boundary corners are identified as to type of marker or even as to whether anything at all was found or placed.
The South and West lines of the Seel and Knauer tract are the South and West lines of Tract (b) described below in a conveyance to Knauer. The evidence indicates that the description of Tract (b) dates from about 1882 and has been transcribed some unknown number of times with unknown transcription errors.
The open circle shown on the 1982 plat was identified in a later deed as being a "concrete monument", not a stone, and the circle in the road as being a "point".
The problem is clearly one that three or four hours in the field only begins to scratch the surface of.
Paul in PA, post: 444983, member: 236 wrote: 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
I have never worked in PA, but I have certainly found many stones under paved roads. Many of them not searched for by a previous surveyor.
aliquot, post: 445037, member: 2486 wrote: I have never worked in PA, but I have certainly found many stones under paved roads. Many of them not searched for by a previous surveyor.
Yes, it seems to be a general rule that surveyors who do not search for stone boundary markers under road pavements tend to assume that none exist.
The cost of getting road opening permits, bonding it, then excavating and restoring a paved road to look for a stone called for a least 250 years ago exceeds the value of a PA survey. Odds are you can find a stone anywhere you dig in PA, but finding a stone monument is deminimis. If the call is to a set stone and not in the road then you look.
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 445043, member: 236 wrote: The cost of getting road opening permits, bonding it, then excavating and restoring a paved road to look for a stone called for a least 250 years ago exceeds the value of a PA survey. Odds are you can find a stone anywhere you dig in PA, but finding a stone monument is deminimis. If the call is to a set stone and not in the road then you look.
So, if it will take time and cost money to search for a boundary monument, does that mean that the boundary monument no longer exists? How do you explain to a client that your survey represents where you *think* the corner *might* be, but you didn't feel at liberty to actually determine whether or not that was true? When damages are incurred, what insulates the surveyor from claims of professional negligence?
I have one I would love to find. However, if it ever existed, it is under 27 feet of fill where a side road approaches a US Highway.
I'm going to back Paul on this one. Sometimes sleeping dogs are going to continue to sleep. Especially when the DOT has chosen to ignore looking for the one to which I refer for about 60 years.
Holy Cow, post: 445047, member: 50 wrote: I have one I would love to find. However, if it ever existed, it is under 27 feet of fill where a side road approaches a US Highway.
I'm going to back Paul on this one. Sometimes sleeping dogs are going to continue to sleep. Especially when the DOT has chosen to ignore looking for the one to which I refer for about 60 years.
The only problem with that example you offer up as typical is that none of the stones marking the corners of the property in question fall under a large amount of road fill. It's not as if locating a stone 24 inches or less below grade is a similar task of major difficulty. The problem is evidently merelythat it would take some time and cost some money, not that the road would need to be closed for a week or more while the stone is uncovered and the pavement reconstructed.
I mean, if a surveyor wants to pursue the "it would take time" excuse, don't you end up not needing a shovel at all to make a boundary survey?
Help probably left the building, especially since the posted solution is to move the line closer to her house.
And that after many thousands of dollars just to give her the bad news. Can't blame her for that.
