Daniel Ralph, post: 372525, member: 8817 wrote: In the survey that the poster provided you note that the subject house was about three feet from the lot line before it was replaced, and it appears that the south neighbor's house (photo supplied) is only two feet which is why these two structures look to be too close together. They are. I hope the new house has cement board siding because when either of them catches fire or needs to be painted it is going to be a problem. Note how the upper area of the new house is stepped back a little bit as it goes up. This probably brings the upper levels into compliance with a portion of the setback code. Note that I said probably. I bet that the house to the south had been added onto and when doing so it also took advantage of the side yard being less than prescribed, if it was permitted at all. The house to the north appears to also be less than the prescribed five feet but the difference is probably not so photo dramatic.
New construction in residential zones have to only be set back from the street by an amount equal to the average of the neighboring structures when they are less than standard. I suppose that there may be provisions for adjusting this in order to preserve a tree under the guise of not restricting ones right to develop their lot to the fullest. Expect that the tree will die or be removed on a Sunday or holiday sometime soon.
[USER=8817]@Daniel Ralph[/USER] The plans call for flame retardant in the siding of the new house because of the close proximity to the neighboring houses. You are correct that the house to the north is also too close to the property line to comply with the zoning law. However, it has been in that spot for the last 110 years, before the current zoning law existed.
The east (front) side of new house is actually much farther east than both neighboring houses, but again, I believe this was allowed in order to preserve the heritage tree at the opposite end of the lot.
LookingForAnswers, post: 372530, member: 11710 wrote: But to get back to my original question, what I would like to know is how surveyors usually go about measuring a lot like this one. Would they typically start from the city's survey monuments at the corners of the plat (embedded in the street intersections) and then work their way in to the lot location using measurements from the plat? Or would they typically start from the closest surveyed monuments (e.g. pins at the corners of a neighboring lot) and use those as the basis of their measurements?
Every situation is different, no hard and fast rules. What do you do for a living?
One small observation and i'll leave it at that...there is a 0.15' excess from record along Interlake.
Dan Dunn, post: 372409, member: 911 wrote: 655.71' is along the center-line of Ashley Avenue, 655.83' is along the sideline of Ashley Avenue. N82nd Street and N80th Street are not parallel but are diverging from one another causing the sideline to be longer than the center-line. This leaves 0.11' to 0.14', depending which current survey you use, to be proportioned through the block. That along with any slight deviation of the corners as originally set may account for the increase in the 30' distance.
Thank you, [USER=911]@Dan Dunn[/USER]. This s very helpful. I had assumed that the centerline and the sideline were identical, but you're right: this plat is not perfectly square: It tapers west to east, narrowing as you go east. According to the 2015 survey, the difference between the west and east edges at the street centerlines is 1.24' (the plat puts it at 1.20').
Neither the 2007 nor the 2015 survey shows a measurement for the sideline of Ashworth (formerly Ashley) Avenue, only the centerline. But the 1981 survey does, and gives 589.95' for the entire block--0.12' greater than the sum of the lot distances shown on the plat (589.83'). If this is correct, then there is 0.12' of error. While it would make more sense to me to just put this small error into the NE lot (Lot 38, which already has a fractional width) and preserve the original widths of the other lots, I understand that surveyors often apportion error by prorating it to all the lots on a block.
Because a 30 foot lot contributes only about 5% to the width of the entire block, it would receive only 0.006' of this error. But if you round up to the nearest hundredth of a foot, you would get 0.01'--the extra amount we are looking for.
There are only two problems with this hypothesis I can think of:
1. If you allocate 0.01' to every original lot on the block, you end up with a total of 0.19'--greater than the original error of 0.12' to allocate.
2. The 2015 survey shows no measurement for the sideline of Ashworth Avenue, only the centerline. If this is what the surveyor did, would it not have made sense to show a total sideline measurement for the block?
LookingForAnswers, post: 372547, member: 11710 wrote: 1. If you allocate 0.01' to every original lot on the block, you end up with a total of 0.19'--greater than the original error of 0.12' to allocate.
Measurements typically are rounded to a hundredth of a foot.
Below is a screen-shot of section lines in the mountains projected onto Google Earh map. These lines on a regular section should be one-mile by one-mile. However when we resurvey a section we need to find the original corner locations. These original surveys, in the mountains, were very difficult back in the late 1800's or early 1900s. As you can see, often they ended up being crooked lines and can be hundreds of feet from where they were meant to be set.
It isn't so much that all surveyors are sloppy, as much as measuring of land is more of a challenge than a lot of people would think. This has nothing to do with being off 0.01 feet in 30 feet per se, just emphasizing that the surveyor has a higher obligation to figure out where original monuments were set rather than setting new ones @ some more "perfect" location.
Tom Adams, post: 372577, member: 7285 wrote: Below is a screen-shot of section lines in the mountains projected onto Google Earh map. These lines on a regular section should be one-mile by one-mile. However when we resurvey a section we need to find the original corner locations. These original surveys, in the mountains, were very difficult back in the late 1800's or early 1900s. As you can see, often they ended up being crooked lines and can be hundreds of feet from where they were meant to be set.
It isn't so much that all surveyors are sloppy, as much as measuring of land is more of a challenge than a lot of people would think. This has nothing to do with being off 0.01 feet in 30 feet per se, just emphasizing that the surveyor has a higher obligation to figure out where original monuments were set rather than setting new ones @ some more "perfect" location.
the 1/4 for 31 and 32 is an interesting one:-S
Tom Adams, post: 372577, member: 7285 wrote: It isn't so much that all surveyors are sloppy, as much as measuring of land is more of a challenge than a lot of people would think. This has nothing to do with being off 0.01 feet in 30 feet per se, just emphasizing that the surveyor has a higher obligation to figure out where original monuments were set rather than setting new ones @ some more "perfect" location.
I definitely don't think that surveyors are sloppy--just the opposite! I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how they work and how a reasonably orthogonal lot on fairly level ground ended up with a dimension measurement that deviated from what it was originally defined to be. So far, I've read two possible explanations that might account for the difference: one that involves offsetting from a monument that was slightly mispositioned and one that involves allocating a portion of an error on the original plat to the lot.
0.01 can be a result of rounding to the nearest hundredth by the software being used and also by reporting actual measurement recorded.
Either way it is only important to bean counters and button pushers with nothing more to complain about.
I can't number the house and building plans I've received to stake that are more inconsistent than that by far.
No telling how many calls from an attorney or title company about some description that did not close exactly perfectly.
There is always that minion that pours their time over your drawing to make sure that the distances on one side of a line add up the same as those on the other side.
CADD with all the computing power can not even get it right most of the time.
Currently I am reading thru a deed that quotes the acreage as 75.1534 acres and refer to 1/2 inch as 112, a'/x, a1/z, a1/z", a'/a', a'/a", 112" and 1/21",
We live in a world where 30 and 30.01 are both correct and there should be no difference in their result being shown on a drawing.
Actually any measurement from 29.95 to 30.05 can be called 30 and be within acceptable positional tolerance for monuments in most of Texas and most parts of the world.
It seems clear to me that the original intent was for the lot to be 30' and the original intent of the zoning was to disallow construction to that height on lots that were not OVER 30' in width. Considering that the lots on the block in question are all 30' (other than the ends), it seems clear that the intent of the zoning was to limit the construction of buildings in that subdivision to 25' in height. In this instance 30.01' is not over 30', IMHO.
Tommy Young, post: 372401, member: 703 wrote: That being said, stay out of your neighbor's business.
I would normally consider this to be extremely good advice, but if I lived in a subdivision and someone was building some oversized monstrosity nearby that clearly violated the intent of the local zoning I'd probably have a problem with it too. However, this is probably not a battle worth taking up, because 1) you're not going to win and 2) you're going to engender hate and discontent.
Mr. Poster,
Regarding the question about precision and accuracy, I think that you should refer to Note 6 on the left hand of the drawing and study WAC 332.130 and particularly paragraph 090. This is the basic standard that we surveyors are bound to follow with regard to the measurements that we take and display.
I continue to be puzzled by your statement that because the lot is 30.01 feet wide (at its frontage) that the owner is entitled to build several feet higher than the standard. Can you cite where this comes from?
LookingForAnswers, post: 372533, member: 11710 wrote: But there is only a difference of 0.01' between the original platted distance (655.83') and the last surveyed measured distance (655.82')--not enough for a proration to allocate 0.01' to every lot on the block. Also, the original platted distance is slightly longer than the surveyed distance, not shorter. That is, of course, if we accept 655.83' as the original platted distance. This is the number you get if you add up all the measurements on the plat between the SE and NE corners.
I only looked at the map you showed and took distances directly listed there.
Interlake
656.91 plat, 657.06 meas ~30.0068
Ashworth
655.71 plat, 655.82 meas ~ 30.0050
LookingForAnswers, post: 372587, member: 11710 wrote: I definitely don't think that surveyors are sloppy--just the opposite! I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how they work and how a reasonably orthogonal lot on fairly level ground ended up with a dimension measurement that deviated from what it was originally defined to be. So far, I've read two possible explanations that might account for the difference: one that involves offsetting from a monument that was slightly mispositioned and one that involves allocating a portion of an error on the original plat to the lot.
We consider anything within a hundredth of a foot to be good. It's immaterial to us, and the planners should be treating it as a 30' lot. the lot is 30' we found a monument that seems to match that lot corner, and the measurement of 30.01 by out steel tape or whatever we used, is supporting evidence that we found the appropriate corner. To me it's simply the planners that are misusing the plat to given them the clearance to build a higher building. That might be a better way of looking at it. I would not consider any of those monuments "mispositioned". Our measuring tools are different today than they were back then, and we are accepting and/or proportioning to the corners found in the field.
Look at it this way. If we measured between two points that were supposed to be 200.0 feet between them and we measured it to be 200.20 feet, which one should we move to make it exactly the distance? And if we moved that one 0.2 feet what would it do to the relationship to then corner that is supposed to be perpendicular to it. What if the nearest measurement should be 30 feet to another corner...should we be moving that one too? This could cause a "chain" reaction. ("chain" - inside joke). It's our job to find the best available evidence of where corners were originally set. Getting a difference of 1/8" in a ground measurement, is just immaterial (to most surveyors)
LookingForAnswers, post: 372505, member: 11710 wrote: New information: I was able to scan my paper copy of the latest survey, which was done on 9/14/2015 and have attached it to this post. Because it was part of the plan set submitted to the city for permitting and made available to my neighbor when she requested it, I believe it is part of the public record. However, I have removed the name of the surveying company.
This survey also contains references to the three other recorded surveys:
1. 1907 survey (from Book 14/Page 95 of Plats)
2. 1981 survey (from Book 27/Page 254 of Plats)
3. 2007 survey (from Book 250, Pages 056-059 of Plats)
I wouldn't worry about the 0.01 ft. so much, I'd be wondering about the apparent "virtual pin cushions" at the SE and SW corners. Why were the existing monuments rejected?
The problem isn't with the survey monuments or the surveyors who put them there or the surveyors who measured between existing monuments. The problem is with the thinking endorsed and codified by the community around those monuments. For some silly reason, human nature dictates that an individual believes he knows better than any other one individual about a specific thing. As a number of such silly people gather, they determine that they, collectively, should be dominant over everyone else. So they create governing entities with all sorts of layers of bureaucracy by which to befuddle, confuse, discombobulate and disorient the average fellow citizen into submission. The first and most important goal is that the bureaucracy be controlled by the "winners" to reign over the "losers" at all times. Woe be to he who falls from being a "winner" to being a "loser", for the price is very, very high. One should hope to someday join the ranks of the "winners" either through application of wealth or political mountain climbing. Marrying well may do the trick all by itself.
Tom Adams, post: 372413, member: 7285 wrote: My spin on the same answer: The plat calls for 30 feet. That is the "legal" width of the lot. If I come out and find the original corners, I might show both the platted distance and what I measured it to be. If I match close the original distance with a difference of only 0.01', that's actually very good. It calls for 30' I measured 30.01, that is actually strong evidence that I am hitting the original distance. Measuring dirt and ground is not as precise as measuring, say a building or a table top.
If a plat was made in 1907, and the surveyor set the corners back then, he set the corners using a steel tape or a measuring chain. he had to chain level to account for any slope in the grade or change in the terrain. If you are matching his measurements with modern equipment, it's actually quite amazing.
edit: After re-reading, I see it's an issue of county regulators. They don't really understand the error differences in land surveying. If a new measurement is that minor difference from the original, they should still consider it to be 30' and under the regulations for 30-foot lots. Sometimes their regulations screw the owner based on measurements. What if you weren't allowed to build at all if the lot was less than 30' and a surveyor showed his retracement to be 29.99. But your battle would be hard to fight. They can point to their rules and standards and can refuse to budge.
Forget it. Around me if I showed 49.999 as a measured distance instead if the needed 50', the boards would make people go for variances and yada yada and have 100 neighbors show up to try and get their project stopped.
Daniel Ralph, post: 372596, member: 8817 wrote: Regarding the question about precision and accuracy, I think that you should refer to Note 6 on the left hand of the drawing and study WAC 332.130 and particularly paragraph 090. This is the basic standard that we surveyors are bound to follow with regard to the measurements that we take and display.
[USER=8817]@Daniel Ralph[/USER], Thank you for the link to WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 332-130-090. I'm not sure I completely understand all of it, though it does seem to specify a minimum accuracy of 1 part in 5000 for residential and subdivision lots. This is equivalent to a fraction of 0.0002. In the case of this block, 0.01' is only about 0.000015 of the total block length. In other words, the level of accuracy of the 2015 survey seems to be far higher than actually required by Washington law.
In Note 6 of the survey it reads, "No correction necessary." I don't know what this means. Do you?
Daniel Ralph, post: 372596, member: 8817 wrote: I continue to be puzzled by your statement that because the lot is 30.01 feet wide (at its frontage) that the owner is entitled to build several feet higher than the standard. Can you cite where this comes from?
Yes, it comes from the Seattle Single Family Residential Zoning Summary, found here:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds021570.pdf
I am also attaching the PDF that this link leads to as well as a screenshot of the portion that deals with height limits:
Brian Allen, post: 372653, member: 1333 wrote: I wouldn't worry about the 0.01 ft. so much, I'd be wondering about the apparent "virtual pin cushions" at the SE and SW corners. Why were the existing monuments rejected?
I'm not sure what you mean. What do you mean by the "virtual pin cushions" at the SE and SW corners? Do you mean the marks labeled "FD TACK & LEAD"? I wasn't sure what these meant, but I assumed they were pins set at the NE and NW corners of the adjoining lot to the south (Lot 28). Which monuments do you think were rejected?
Lee D, post: 372594, member: 7971 wrote: It seems clear to me that the original intent was for the lot to be 30' and the original intent of the zoning was to disallow construction to that height on lots that were not OVER 30' in width.
I agree. Even if the height of the new house does not violate the letter of the zoning law, I believe it does violate the spirit of it. On the other hand, I can (reluctantly) understand why the city wants to stick with the letter of the law because to do otherwise might create a slippery slope. What if the plat said the lot was 30' wide but the survey showed it (and the other lots) must actually be 31' to add up to the measured length of the block? Where do you draw the line? I think a better solution would be to simply add the words "rounded to the nearest foot" to this zoning code. In this case, the surveyed measurement of 30.01' would simply have been rounded to 30' and a height limit of 25' would have been imposed.
Lee D, post: 372594, member: 7971 wrote: Considering that the lots on the block in question are all 30' (other than the ends), it seems clear that the intent of the zoning was to limit the construction of buildings in that subdivision to 25' in height. In this instance 30.01' is not over 30', IMHO.
I think the intent of the zoning was to limit buildings on 30-foot lots to 25' in height but please note that all but two properties on the block were actually widened at some point in history to 40' by allocating portions of the original 30-foot lots (either 30 + 10 or 20 + 20). But ironically, taller houses have never been built on any of these wider lots. They are all either one or two-story houses with basements.
Lee D, post: 372594, member: 7971 wrote: I would normally consider this to be extremely good advice, but if I lived in a subdivision and someone was building some oversized monstrosity nearby that clearly violated the intent of the local zoning I'd probably have a problem with it too. However, this is probably not a battle worth taking up, because 1) you're not going to win and 2) you're going to engender hate and discontent.
Thanks for empathizing and I agree with this too.
I missed the part about the majority of the lots being widened to 40'; it's rather ironic that someone chose one of the two remaining 30' lots to build their little McMansion on.
Honestly I was reading this yesterday but it just now hit me how small 30' actually is... I love the small homes built on lots that size that you find in many urban areas but I can't imagine trying to build anything of any size on one. What many people in the greater New Orleans area were doing (and may still be) was combining two or three of those lots into one and then building a larger home.
After reading your post the real crux of the problem is that you and your neighbors simply do not want a three story house in your neighborhood.
With respect to the 30.00 vs 30.01 you are pursuing an excersise in futality. You would have a better chance searching for the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
