Hold the steel fence posts? or Ignore them? (Appology for a surveying related post, during all the other activities!)

Posted by: @nate-the-surveyor

... 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.

Posted by: @thebionicman

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

Posted by: @paden-cash

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

It sounds like you have good reasons to believe that some of the line T posts were not set next to the original line wood stakes. And the landowner may have eyeballed line in placing his T posts closer to the river. If that is correct, then those T posts would not have the same weight as the front ones.?ÿ

Tough call for sure, but holding the above reasoning, you would have a good argument to match up with the plat dimensions. As long as that does not ƒ??disturb the neighborhoodƒ? in any way, I donƒ??t see how anyone could come along later and challenge it or would want to.?ÿ

Posted by: @mightymoe

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

Yes, it was his standard MO. I think I found less than 10 of his 3/8" rebars and caps, in a 10 yr time span. He had 3-4 crews going. 800 surveys a yr would be a reasonable guess.

We could not compete with him. (we were turning angles, and pouring our souls into it!)

He finally lost his ticket.

Thank you,

N

You say that the property owner (subdivider) set the T-post. Were the T-post in when the property owner sold the property? If so than didn't the subdivider and the new owner agree to the T-post.

If you choose to reject them my logic for rejecting them would be something in the nature of there is no record of the reasoning of there placement, there are no living participants to there placement that can be consulted, they do not carry the characteristic of a monument set by a licensed practitioner in my local area of practice, in my opinion the t posts were placed as approximate markers of maintenance limits of raw land. Very interesting problem you have, a compelling argument could be made for holding them as well.?ÿ

Reminds me of a friend's lot in a rural subdivision ~1980.?ÿ He didn't think the T-post the real estate guy told him was his corner looked right. We measured out the plat dimensions and hit right on a rebar. 15 ft different.

It's hard to figure out who set a T-post if that person isn't there.