This subdivision was done in about 1988. The surveyor set wood stakes. The landowner came later, and set steel fence posts. The landowner has since deceased. The surveyor has lost his license. (He was the local "wham bam, we done" surveyor). Fast and cheap. It's hard ground. The land owner MAY have moved along the line, and set the T post, to find a better place to drive them.
I am surveying one of the lots. They are roughly 150' x 1100', and front on the Caddo River. The front corners, on the road, have steel fence posts. They were easy to utilize, as I am holding record, and record works, within a tenth or 3. Some of the line marker T posts have been removed by activity of the landowners, and the river.
But, going towards the river, I am finding the steel fence posts, (One per lot line) about 2.5', 1', and such "OFF" of record. Now, this surveyor was CAPABLE of good work, but he was pretty fast....
Nobody has built anything, EXCEPT where the T posts are right on. So, those ones are not in conflict.
I can find LOGIC to reject the posts, that are OFF by 2.5', and 1.0'. and, I can find logic to yield to them. And, for the moment, I am sitting on the fence.
IF I reject them, then the geometry of the subdivision HOLDS TOGETHER.
IF I accept them, then it falls apart.
What are your thoughts?
Thinking..... Thinking......
Thank you,
Nate
?ÿ
... steel fence posts. ... for the moment, I am sitting on the fence.
Sounds very uncomfortable. ?????ÿ
But fortunately it seems not a lot is riding on the decision.
If you hold record on the front, it says you don't consider the posts original monuments, so shouldn't that apply to the back also?
I take them for evidence of what the landowner recognizes. Doing this actually helped me to logically disprove one theory in a complex nightmare I snagged a while back
?ÿ
Holding the record in front, is not too bad, as the road grader, and county mower has damaged, and dislocated the front ones, with parts of the cut off post in the ground. The discrepancy is small enough, and the damaged monuments tend to make this a MUTE issue, with the landowners. They just don't care. But, I can see a foot or 2.5' going towards the river causing a bit of a problem, because there are 12' set backs, for buildings. This leaves them 126', and a foot can ruin plans. The lines were parallel. (Lots are 150' N-S, x 1100' + - E-W)
Once I pin it, I have attached myself to an ideology.
Nate
It is difficult to do, but IMHO one should either accept evidence as a whole, or reject it.?ÿ No "cherry picking".?ÿ I believe (with no other indications) accepting some iron posts because they fit and rejecting others because they don't is poor practice.?ÿ I'm not saying the fences aren't good evidence of occupation, I just don't believe there is enough evidence to indicate the posts are truly perpetuations of the original stakes.?ÿ The fault in this situation is on the original surveyor, not the surveyor responsible for the rectracement.?ÿ
Simply put, with no reliable evidence other than erratic posts the only thing there is to rely upon is the records.?ÿ Somebody has to put some harmony in the ground.?ÿ While it may not be a popular choice at this time, those that follow will appreciate your diligence.
Get any rain lately? 😉
Unless you can demonstrate a clear difference between the front and rear posts you should treat them the same. Arguably the undisturbed rear posts are more reliable than the front. It comes down to one question.
Do the posts represent the perpetuation of original subdivision corners? If the answer is yes the math is irrelevant.?ÿ
This is why we all make so much money and retire at 45 with enough to carry us to?ÿ 95. ???? ?????ÿ
I agree with the above. Unless, of course the T-post brand/shape/composition/installation of the evidence is not consistent front to rear. I presume that you searched for the remains of the original wood stakes. (Channeling Kent here.)?ÿ
Could the original surveyor (pause here. I don't care that he lost his license or why, or what his community standing is/was, that should be irrelevant to your decision) have staked the waterfront lines independent from the lower ones or run each lot line? I don't know what the terrain is like.?ÿ
At the end of the day, a property owner commissioned a licensed land surveyor to create a subdivision of his land, and subsequently approved of it. They then sold those parcels based on a map that they thought they were their wishes and the buyer understood that these fence posts were the boundary. Have you tried to have a conversation with the original developer??ÿ That was only 32 years ago. I have people call me all the time about things I did 32 years ago.?ÿ?ÿ
Have a good weekend, don't loose sleep over this one.?ÿ
?ÿ
@nate-the-surveyor Dang Nate, I have no doubt who you are retracing!!?ÿ 2.5 ft. in 1100 ft. he was on fire that day! That has got to be one of his best efforts, usually 2.5 ft. in 150 ft.?ÿ I believe I would hang with his signature "T" post monuments.
Arguably the undisturbed rear posts are more reliable than the front. It comes down to one question.
No, the front ones were measured in, and set. (I drove by this subdivision, way back when it was done, and I SAW these wood stakes),
The ones "On the lot lines", (the rear ones are in the river) were possibly even measured in, by chaining along the river bank, and sticking them in, and or, moved ALONG the line, (They are just line markers) and set where the landowner wanted. I suspect the landowner may have moved them closer to the river, so as to not be in the way of his mowing. Where they are today, is NOT visible from the front (Goes over the bank, towards the river.)?ÿ Where they had been set, I think they HAD BEEN visible from the front. I am suspicious that they are NOT original. In one place, where the Tpost is visible from the front, the bearings match up just fine.
It's a conundrum...
?ÿ
The landowner's name wasn't Garfunkel, was it?
"Protect the plat".?ÿ To me that means if you have reliable evidence that supports the original location of the line run on the ground that more or less agrees with the original plat, without overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I should reject questionable evidence that is not in harmony with the plat. The holy grail are the original corners or accessories, but short of that I would be loath to disregard the plat in favor of some evidence that in retrospect, might not pass the red face test.?ÿ
Protect the landowners. IF the T posts are original, (Or are the descendants of the originals) they hold. The trouble is that word "Descendants". The landowner set them. Did he set them with a bit more slop? So, that is my enigma. I am leaning towards HOLDING them, because the errors seem to be isolated towards the south end of the subdivision. That is, they are pretty much the SAME direction of error, ie, too far north.
South side lot 1, 1 foot too far north.
South side lot 2, 2.44' too far north.
South side lot 3, 1.11' too far north.
South side lot 4, T post is missing.
South side lot 5, right on the line.
South side lot 6, right on the line.
South side lot 7, 0.43' too far north.
Maybe I'll shoot some more lot corners.
But, this fact that all of them are too far north, seems to indicate that there is a pattern.
Thinking......
Thinking.....
When I park this one, I think I will have a nap.
Nate
?ÿ
?ÿ
No "cherry picking"
There is no way to avoid that, in this case. (I think) all that's out there, is Steel fence posts, set by the land owner, where the wood stakes were. Some are cut off via brush hog. Some are destroyed. So, I generated a Computer Copy of Record. Then, shot a bunch of the metal stakes, (remains, some are mangled up pretty good) and performed a "Best fit". This is how I determined that things seem pretty reasonable, except when you go east, to the river, and look at the line points. 1 to 3 feet. All off generally the same direction. I don't expect court ever, but I do expect other surveyors to try to come by, ASSUMING a short afternoon.... 🙂
?ÿ
Wooden stakes? That you saw??ÿ
A very cheap surveyor, wooden subdivision stakes are circ. 1900 to maybe 1920 in this area. Have you ever found an old wooden one??ÿ
