Tommy Young, post: 372401, member: 703 wrote: The regs should be based on the deed lot width.
That being said, stay out of your neighbor's business.
I agree that the regs should be based on the deed or nominal width or lot size. In PLSS states many zoning regs are written based on the assumption that a 16th section has 40 acres and a 64th section has 10 acres, though it is rarely so. In the OP's case the code was probably written because of the prevalence of 30' lots in the city. When the lot went from 30' on paper to 30.01' on the ground, the lot did not change in terms of it's suitability for a specific use. This is not really a measurement or survey problem. It's poorly crafted regulations being taken advantage of by a builder.
Any number you put in the regs is somewhat arbitrary. What would you spec if a city used metric measurements in the OP's case, 9.144 meters, or would it be 9 or 9.1, or even 10 meters?
Though a zoning code helped create the OP's problem, zoning is needed to keep incompatible land uses from adversely affecting other property owners. Planners and "community development departments" frequently (always?) get way out of hand, but there's a place for their work.
The way that 1907 plat is Lots 2 thru 37 should get their full measure of 30 feet in the north/south direction (40feet for lots 19 & 20) and all excess/deficiency thrown into lots 1 & 38. The excess/deficiency should not be prorated. That is if nothing other than this plat has occured to affect the boundary of the lots in this block in the last 109 years.
Internal monumentation of lots in the block that may have occured over the 109 years since platting may interupt that continuity. It is very possible, I should say very likely, that the lots have dimensions other than the exact numbers shown on the plat. It's a question of law - rather complicated law - and not a question of simple mathematics.
It is very common for cities like Seattle and Portland to be encouraging higher density construction. That means that larger houses are replacing smaller houses in our close in neighborhoods. The idea, broadly, is to put more people within a shorter commute. Get used to it. I must say that if you are trying to stop your neighbor from building over 0.01' of lot width then you may be the neighbor from hell.
MightyMoe, post: 372414, member: 700 wrote: I agree completely, and a 30 foot lot is fixed by law as 30 feet forever.
Good luck getting the zoning people to understand that concept.I think you meant 29.5' 🙂
Yes I did mean 29.5' - thx
Instead of questioning the survey, you should be questioning the zoning board.
It looks like only the end lots would qualify for the higher buildings. Odd zoning.
You say you're not a surveyor, but let me say you've certainly grasped some of these concepts fairly well.
Wait,,,, Are we getting trolled here???
Most people get stuck when we start talking in decimal feet.
Andy J, post: 372425, member: 44 wrote: You say you're not a surveyor, but let me say you've certainly grasped some of these concepts fairly well.
Wait,,,, Are we getting trolled here???
Most people get stuck when we start talking in decimal feet.
...wondered the same thing...but my replies would have been the same..
I was down in Manhattan Beach in Southern Cal over the winter visiting friends. Anybody who's visited this area knows how built up it has become over the years with multitudes of three story condos and townhouses on tiny lots similar to what you describe, crowding the coast line. My friend's bungalow is one of the last of the original buildings on the entire block, maybe 1200 square feet with a tiny garage smaller than some of the neighbors walk in closets, three blocks from the beach. It's nearly always in the shade. It's just a matter of time before a developer gets their hands on that tiny lot and the first thing they'll do is tear down that quaint little bungalow and replace it with a 3 story $5,000,000 dollar townhouse.
I'd suggest you read the writing on the wall. Trying to pin down 0.01' in a lot's dimension is a it of a fool's errand IMHO.
paden cash, post: 372429, member: 20 wrote: ...wondered the same thing...but my replies would have been the same..
I looked on GE, but the latest aerial is from 2015. I see no construction or vacant lot, so it must have been a tear down??
[USER=11710]@LookingForAnswers[/USER]: The following might help you better understand how survey measurements are regulated.
From here in Washington:
WAC 332-130-090
Field traverse standards for land boundary surveys.
The following standards shall apply to field traverses used in land boundary surveys. Such standards should be considered minimum standards only. Higher levels of precision are expected to be utilized in areas with higher property values or in other situations necessitating higher accuracy.
(1) Linear closures after azimuth adjustment.
(a) City - central and local business and industrial
areas. . . .1:10,000
(b) City - residential and subdivision lots. . . .1:5,000
(c) Section subdivision, new subdivision boundaries for residential lots and interior monument control. . . .1:5,000
(d) Suburban - residential and subdivision lots. . . .1:5,000
(e) Rural - forest land and cultivated areas. . . .1:5,000
(f) Lambert grid traverses. . . .1:10,000
(2) Angular closure.
(a) Where 1:10,000 minimum linear closure is required, the maximum angular error in seconds shall be determined by the formula of 10 ö?n, where "n" equals the number of angles in the closed traverse.
(b) Where 1:5,000 minimum linear closure is required, the maximum angular error in seconds shall be determined by the formula of 30 ö?n where "n" equals the number of angles in the closed traverse.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 58.24.040(1). WSR 90-06-028 (Order 568), å¤ 332-130-090, filed 3/1/90, effective 4/1/90; WSR 89-11-028 (Order 561), å¤ 332-130-090, filed 5/11/89.]
From the ALTA/NSPS National Standards:
Measurement Standards - The following measurement standards address Relative Positional Precision for the monuments or witnesses marking the corners of the surveyed property.
ÛÏRelative Positional PrecisionÛ means the length of the semi-major axis, expressed in feet or meters, of the error ellipse representing the uncertainty due to random errors in measurements in the location of the monument, or witness, marking any corner of the surveyed property relative to the monument, or witness, marking any other corner of the surveyed property at the 95 percent confidence level. Relative Positional Precision is estimated by the results of a correctly weighted least squares adjustment of the survey.
Any boundary lines and corners established or retraced may have uncertainties in location resulting from (1) the availability, condition, history and integrity of reference or controlling monuments, (2) ambiguities in the record descriptions or plats of the surveyed property or its adjoiners, (3) occupation or possession lines as they may differ from the written title lines, or (4) Relative Positional Precision. Of these four sources of uncertainty, only Relative Positional Precision is controllable, although, due to the inherent errors in any measurement, it cannot be eliminated. The magnitude of the first three uncertainties can be projected based on evidence; Relative Positional Precision is estimated using statistical means (see Section 3.E.i. above and Section 3.E.v. below).
The first three of these sources of uncertainty must be weighed as part of the evidence in the determination of where, in the surveyorÛªs opinion, the boundary lines and corners of the surveyed property should be located (see Section 3.D. above). Relative Positional Precision is a measure of how precisely the surveyor is able to monument and report those positions; it is not a substitute for the application of proper boundary law principles. A boundary corner or line may have a small Relative Positional Precision because the survey measurements were precise, yet still be in the wrong position (i.e., inaccurate) if it was established or retraced using faulty or improper application of boundary law principles.
For any measurement technology or procedure used on an ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey, the surveyor shall (1) use appropriately trained personnel, (2) compensate for systematic errors, including those associated with instrument calibration, and (3) use appropriate error propagation and measurement design theory (selecting the proper instruments, geometric layouts, and field and computational procedures) to control random errors such that the
maximum allowable Relative Positional Precision outlined in Section 3.E.v. below is not exceeded.
The maximum allowable Relative Positional Precision for an ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey is 2 cm (0.07 feet) plus 50 parts per million (based on the direct distance between the two corners being tested). It is recognized that in certain circumstances, the size or configuration of the surveyed property, or the relief, vegetation, or improvements on the surveyed property, will result in survey measurements for which the maximum allowable Relative Positional Precision may be exceeded. If the maximum allowable Relative Positional Precision is exceeded, the surveyor shall note the reason as explained in Section 6.B.x. below.
Like Moe said;
the best thing you could do would be: hire a surveyor and have him check the measurement.
I wonder if, on a retracement survey, it would be better to put down the deeded or platted distance first and then add the measured distance in parentheses. It would send the message that the "official" distance is the platted one, and the secondary distance is your measurement. Maybe that could give a different light on the subject when a planner or other government official decides that the retracement measurement overrides the "legal" measurement. Same with acreage, I think we might see that discrepancy being misinterpreted even more often. landowners being turned down because their parcel no longer meets some kind of minimum-acreage requirement.
If we're being trolled, the poster is certainly being polite.
Mark Mayer, post: 372417, member: 424 wrote: The way that 1907 plat is Lots 2 thru 37 should get their full measure of 30 feet in the north/south direction (40feet for lots 19 & 20) and all excess/deficiency thrown into lots 1 & 38. The excess/deficiency should not be prorated.
I have done this in the past, applied the excess/ deficiency to the irregularly dimensioned lots in a block. Recently though, I have reread the "remnant rule" principle in Brown's. It seems that this principle is generally unsupported by most jurisdictions. Certainly un-dimensioned irregular lots are a different story.
Now, I usually look to what other surveyors have done in the block and go with that.
I am usually loath to intervene in a situation like this but since it is in my neighborhood I must at least lend my two pennies. That coupled with the fact that my name is not on any of the maps that are in question. I am familiar with the neighborhood though. For the members of this board, there recently have been complaints filed (perhaps by the poster) about a structure being too high in this neighborhood which have been surveyed and approved by the City Inspector.
I don't think that you can equate the three surveys that have been presented to us. Ken Long's survey is in Windermere Heights but Rod Hanson's map is not. Believe it or not, locating the streets in all three of these maps may very well have three different conclusions. I don't know (well, I do have a good idea) where the lot that is in question is located, plat or not, but without that information rendering an substantial opinion is not possible. For instance, if the subject parcel is on Ashworth you will see that at 82nd the original plat of Windermere Heights (Gardner) set a stone monument in a different place then Mr. Long found and accepted one and Mr. Hanson didn't find either. There is a traffic circle there now and thus the City has probably offset it again but perhaps not; there are a lot of empty cases in the streets set by contractors awaiting the City Survey Department to visit them. We should never expect a standard measurement along this line under these conditions. I also can expect that Mr. Long and Mr. Hansen used different equipment to measure these lines and the their equipment and methods were different to Mr. Gardner.
History. Over time things move and sometimes get lost or destroyed. Survey monuments controlling property location are not immune to this. The City of Seattle has done a fairly good job of maintaining these points and even setting and resetting them as they see fit. It is up to the surveyor to determine if the points on the ground determine where the lot location is. Sometimes we have a hard time articulating this in a way that laymen can understand. Survey maps have only had a repository Washington since 1973 and then only if there is not another map on file for the same parcel. I will not get into the merits of recording except to say the benefits outweigh the cost and trouble to do it. The State of Washington DNR has a vast assortment survey records some of which may be interesting in this situation and the City of Seattle certainly warrants a visit if you want to know more about where they consider their right-of-way is. Venture to the 47th floor of the Municipal building and ask Lee to help you seek information or better, ask to speak to a surveyor who is likely sitting in the adjacent room. Don't forget to linger on the 40th floor and enjoy the view.
As I write this I can gaze out over the north end of Lake Washington and can see three different municipalities all of who calculate allowable building height differently. In fact within ten-minutes of the comfort of my chair there are ten or eleven (depending on traffic volume) municipalities and they virtually all calculate and measure building height in different ways! This appears to be a zoning (legal) mater and therefore I recommend that you consult someone familiar with the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC). The SMC is littered with exceptions and bonuses that may apply to the building in question. This matter should be, and may have been, better addressed to a message board of architects and city planners. For instance, the SMC allows for additional height to a structure when the height is set back from the lot line appropriately. You will find all the explanation needed for the additional height by reading the plans or discussing this with whomever put them together.
This particular message board is often visited by an attorney who maintains a boundary dispute law blog of legal issues pertaining to land issues in Seattle. I expect or hope that he chimes in.
It is now time for me to take a break and get some billable hours in.
Zoning is typically, or should typically be applied to lots according to their record nominal sizes. A few hundredths of a foot, or even a few tenths one way or the other shouldn't change the zoning requirements or restrictions because those minor variations are almost always nothing more than the differences in measurements that our profession and the courts have come to expect between surveys made at different times by different surveyors using different equipment and methods. In fact, 0.01' of difference in a 30' distance can be round-off error and isn't even considered significant when comparing two measurements made by modern equipment.
If your local agency is granting a variance, they had better have a better basis than that the lot width is 0.01' over the zoning cutoff because the next measurement is just as likely to come in at 29.99' as it is 30.01'.
And this is the perfect example as to why I don't live in town!
imaudigger, post: 372463, member: 7286 wrote: And this is the perfect example as to why I don't live in town!
Live in town? He!!!. I moved clear to Alaska years ago to escape that nonsense.
.
As a kid I learned if you put too many rats in a cage good chance they'll start chewing off each others tails, and it all starts with 0.01'!
Williwaw, post: 372468, member: 7066 wrote: As a kid I learned if you put too many rats in a cage good chance they'll start chewing off each others tails, and it all starts with 0.01'!
That reminds me of the book "King Rat" by James Clavell. (also was made into a movie back in 1962, but the book talked more about the fate of the Rats)
I must (don't) have too much time on my hands. But in the City of Seattle, there are Directors Rules in addition to Sections 23.44.010 and 23.44.012 of the Seattle the Municipal Code at minimum. Of the 88 Directors Rules there are perhaps five that might apply to the original posters situation regarding site dimensions and building height.
Directors Rule 25-96
Directors Rule 4-85
Directors Rule 6-33
Directors Rule 4-2012
Directors Rule 12-2005
This only reinforces my opinion that commenting on zoning issues is a dangerous thing to do.
Daniel Ralph, post: 372472, member: 8817 wrote: ..This only reinforces my opinion that commenting on zoning issues is a dangerous thing to do...
I try to stay away from any certification on a survey that have to do with zoning ordinances. I was once asked to measure the height of a new structure. The limit as stated by ordinance was 35'. From the ground directly below to the top of the tallest chimney was 34.8' and I stated so on my survey. A neighbor hired a surveyor to measure it as opposed to the street and the building limit line...of course it was over 35' in both places.
I never got so tired of attending council meetings and listening to old wind bags argue an ambiguous ordinance.
Won't do them, nope.
It's NEVER about the measurement and ALWAYS about the difference between what the 2 sides want.
