LookingForAnswers, post: 372701, member: 11710 wrote: In Note 6 of the survey it reads, "No correction necessary." I don't know what this means. Do you?
Lets see if I get the formatting correct on this post.
I believe that this means that the raw data from the field traverse meets minimum specifications and did not need any adjustment to achieve closure. This is common where the density of controlling points are close to the objective and one uses equipment that meets standard. That said, this is a better question for Mr. Greene if you really want to know.
Thanks for the CAM. This was changed since I have had to look at it as a result of the skinny lot uproar a couple of years ago. It is not funny how this has percolated to become a survey issue and not a building issue.
LookingForAnswers, post: 372490, member: 11710 wrote: Let me emphasize that I do NOT, at this point, have any reason to believe the surveyor who did the survey for the developer intentionally altered the lot measurement by 0.01' in order to allow the developer to build a three-story house.
Of course, neither I or any of the esteemed members of Surveyorconnect.com would ever do such a dastardly thing. But I bet most of us do know surveyors who would be happy to do so for a good customer.
A Harris, post: 372593, member: 81 wrote: 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.
"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."
Mathematically speaking "30'" can be anywhere between 29.50' and 30.49'.
Actually, FrancisH, no it is not.
We measure the monuments, not the plats. they are evidence, but not as good as "original, undisturbed monuments."
At least in Texas, we will ALWAYS hold original undisturbed monuments over plat calls.
0.01 feet is effectively NOTHING. Hence, this saga is "Much Ado About Nothing".
Holy Cow, post: 372815, member: 50 wrote: 0.01 feet is effectively NOTHING.
I wish "a hunnerth" was really nothing to some folks.
I spent way too much time arguing that point to several title examiners and an irate client.
One description (that a conveyance had depended upon) had a point of beginning 682.15' north of a section corner and proceeded north of that point. An adjoining parcel (to the south) was described as eventually getting around its boundary and then returning to the section corner with a distance of 682.16'. Horror of horrors...there was a 0.01' overlap!
Both parcels had been created at the same time by a previous survey. When contacted the surveyor had to admit that the difference had to do with rounding and he had not noticed it when he prepared the descriptions 5 years previous. Although they finally hashed it out without taking it to the SCOTUS, I wasted a part of my life I'll never get back just listening to folks howl.
Way too much time and energy was spent over a fly-speck...
FL/GA PLS., post: 372714, member: 379 wrote: 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.
I think that, ideally, most of us would have preferred if the developer had built a house that was consistent with the size and style of the other houses on the block and proportional to its lot. Failing that, they would have built one that was at least proportional to its lot, even if the style was radically different (i.e. boxy-modern instead of craftsman). But what we got is one that's both grossly out of proportion to its lot and radically different in style. If a three-story house had to be built, it would have been preferable if it had at least been built on one of the thirteen lots on the block that are 40' wide or wider.
Holy Cow, post: 372815, member: 50 wrote: 0.01 feet is effectively NOTHING. Hence, this saga is "Much Ado About Nothing".
I agree. But that little bit of nothing definitely took away something.
But at least I believe the mystery of where the extra 0.01' came from is now solved. Since the block is actually 589.95' at the eastern sideline as shown in the 1981 survey (not 589.83' as indicated by the plat), the surveyor probably "stretched" it by allocating the 0.12' of error (about 1.4") across all the lots--giving the lot in question an extra 0.006', which was then rounded up to 0.01'.
By I still can't help but wonder: why was the plat wrong? They were closer to modern surveys on other measurements and were recording numbers to the hundredth of a foot, which implies they could achieve that level of precision. Is it possible the monument at the SE corner of the plat "moved" slightly south between 1907 and 1981? Could the original stone monument have been 1.4" further north when the land was originally platted? If so, it would mean both the original surveyor and modern surveyors were correct in their measurements, even though they got different results, because the monument they were measuring from was in a slightly different position.
"I think that, ideally, most of us would have preferred if the developer had built a house that was consistent with the size and style of the other houses on the block and proportional to its lot"
That is perfectly understandable, unfortunately the developer of a project has complete control until the project is substantially complete, has passed all final inspections and is turned over to the Homeowners Association which will presumably have an Architectural Control Committee that has the authority to prevent such occurances as you have described. Building and County officials have no control as to the aesthitics of a proposed residence provided it meets the building codes currently in situ. In laymans terms, as it stands currently, you are SOL.
LookingForAnswers, post: 372867, member: 11710 wrote: Is it possible the monument at the SE corner of the plat "moved" slightly south between 1907 and 1981? Could the original stone monument have been 1.4" further north when the land was originally platted? If so, it would mean both the original surveyor and modern surveyors were correct in their measurements, even though they got different results, because the monument they were measuring from was in a slightly different position.
Monuments do move, but in this case I don't think it's likely. 0.12' excess from a 1907 plat is actually quite good. As retracement surveyors, our job is to reestablish lines where they were originally. Because all measurements contain error, surveyors will always get different results. That is where proportioning comes in. It's purpose is to equally distribute those differences so that lines on the ground remain the same.
LookingForAnswers, post: 372867, member: 11710 wrote:
By I still can't help but wonder: why was the plat wrong?
It is not wrong. That is what all this talk about mathematics and the science and art of measurement is attempting to show you. Every measurement is correct or in error according to a specified amount of allowable error. I can assure you that in 1907, 0.12' was absolutely within that allowable error.
And, in the end, where the original surveyor set his marks, whether done with a large error budget, or a small one, it is CORRECT. (Unless it was done fraudulently.) A survey or a plat that subdivides land does not occur only on paper. The survey is what actually happens on the ground. The paper provides a record of that survey.
LookingForAnswers, post: 372867, member: 11710 wrote: Is it possible the monument at the SE corner of the plat "moved" slightly south between 1907 and 1981? Could the original stone monument have been 1.4" further north when the land was originally platted? If so, it would mean both the original surveyor and modern surveyors were correct in their measurements, even though they got different results, because the monument they were measuring from was in a slightly different position.
Sure, anything is possible. But, the surveyor doesn't deal in "possible" and neither will a court in your jurisdiction, I presume. They deal with evidence, and different levels of evidence. The surveyor in this case is looking for the preponderance of evidence of the original location of the survey monuments.
You will find that the issue here is NOT a bad survey. It is instead an issue that you have with the planning and zoning people in your jurisdiction. You are not alone in this, and I will point out that while elections have consequences, they never seem to change the bureaucracy. If you find out how to do that, please let me know.
I saw the initial post on Sunday evening with 0.01Ûª prompt. I knew that it would light a fuse here. Paden post was the match. I really canÛªt believe what has happened since. Pretty amazng.
This was never a question concerning survey practice or procedure. This was a zoning problem and had nothing to do with the previous survey(s) or how they were performed. While the analysis of the survey data and plats are of interest, they bear no weight on this situation.
This matter should have been taken to the public zoning hearing. An appeal should have been made to the local governing body that controls the zoning panel. Lawsuit could have been filed against the local zoning board for an improper decision. Yes, a lawyers, guns and money scenario.
Horse is out of the barn at this time. The monolith has been assembled.
To repeat, there was never a problem or error in previous plats and surveys. The problem here was that the zoning panels' ear were being filled with wring info by the interested parties in support of the construction.
Brian McEachern, post: 372491, member: 9299 wrote: Built to the limit for sure. Not even room for siding probably, even though the contractor will put it on anyway.
Typically, around here, the offsets required are for the foundation. The eaves, siding, bay windows, etc have a certain limit as well, but the 5' offset may not apply to them. Each city is different, of course, and always changing.
Robert Hill, post: 372916, member: 378 wrote: This was a zoning problem and had nothing to do with the previous survey(s) or how they were performed. While the analysis of the survey data and plats are of interest, they bear no weight on this situation.
I'd say this 0.01' pony has been officially beat to death.
LookingForAnswers, post: 372359, member: 11710 wrote: Hello,
I'm definitely not a professional surveyor, but I'm hoping that those of you who are can help me understand why a surveyor might have made a decision that's had a rather profound effect on the appearance of my block. In a nutshell, I'd like to know how a surveyor might derive a lot width measurement that differs from that on the original plat by 0.01 feet.
Some background:
In a lot on my block, a new house is under construction, to a height of just under 30 feet. It is a large, modern-style three-story house (the only three-story house the block), and will probably also be the largest house on the block. It replaces a small, one-story house that stood on the lot for the last 65 years. The lot on which it is being built is only about 30 feet wide. I say "about" because the true width of the lot is the crux of the matter. In my view (and that of my neighbors) the house that's being built is grossly out of proportion to the size of its lot.
When it was framed to its full height a few weeks ago, I was surprised that our zoning law allowed such a tall house to be built on such a narrow lot. So I checked the city zoning code and found that, for a 30-foot lot, the height limit is actually only 25 feet. In order to build to 30 feet high, the lot must be greater than 30 feet wide. Searching online, I obtained a copy of the deed, which contained the legal description of the property, which defines it as a specific numbered lot on a plat map from 1907.
I then obtained a copy of this plat from our county recorder's office. This is the original plat map from when this land was first added to the city and subdivided. The plat clearly indicates that this lot is defined to be exactly 30 feet wide. And in fact, all 19 lots on the block are also defined as 30 feet wide, except for the two at the north and south ends (the south lot is 40' and the north lot is 39.83'). So it seemed that the house being built was indeed violating the zoning code by exceeding the height limit for a 30-foot lot.
A neighbor happened to have a copy of the plans and loaned them to me. They showed the height of the building to be just under 30 feet and also contained a survey commissioned by the developer showing a lot width of 30.01'--just barely enough to allow a 30-foot building, which in turn would allow an entire third story. This surprised me, because the plat clearly defined the lot to be 30 feet wide, so it seemed that it must be in error. Since this lot was defined to be exactly 30 feet wide at the time of its creation, it seemed that any measurement that deviated from that must be in error, by definition.
I contacted the city zoning inspector with this information but was told that because the developer's survey showed a width exceeding 30' (even if by only 0.01'), they were in compliance with the city code, so there was no zoning violation.
Since then, I've done some research and found it's fairly common for surveyed measurements to deviate from those on the original plat--even by only 0.01'--though I don't understand why. This would make sense to me if the measurements on the plat did not add up, or did not match reality. For example, if the sum of the various component distances between two monuments did not equal the distance measured directly between those monuments, but that is not the case here.
Also, I understand that when an error is found, a surveyor may allocated the error proportionally across all lots on a block, prorating the allocated amount according to the percentage that each lot contributes to the entire length of the block. I've even seen examples of that online. But again, there seems to be no such error here.
Researching online, I was able to find 4 surveys of this block (include that on which the original plat was based), and they are all remarkably consistent in the length they assign to the east side of the plat (i.e. between the existing monument at the SE corner and a calculated "monument" at the NE corner), as follows:
1907 Survey: 655.83' (this is the original plat map)
1981 Survey: 655.82'
2007 Survey: 655.85'
2015 Survey: 655.82' (submitted by the developer with the plans for the new house for building permit)As you can see, these measurements do not vary from each other by more than 0.03'. Thus, even if you needed to distribute an error amount by prorating a portion of it to each lot, there would not be enough to distribute to an individual lot to make up 0.01'. Since each original 30' lot made up about 5% of the total distance, if each lot got 0.01' of proration, that would mean a total of 0.19' of error would need to have been distributed. That's about 2.35 inches. But there is no evidence that so much error existed.
So where did this mysterious extra 0.01' come from?
Two more things:
1. The original plat map uses a single stone monument at the southeast corner of the plat as the basis for its north-south offsets. All measurements from this monument are given in whole feet: 33 feet from the monument to the start of the southeast lot, 40 feet for the southeast lot, and then 30 feet for each lot up to and including the lot in question. There was not then and is not now any monument at the northeast corner of the plat. Both the 2007 survey and the 2015 survey calculate where a monument "should" be, presumably by extrapolating from monuments at the two street intersections immediately to the east and west of the intersection missing its monument.
2. For some reason, the original plat map shows 655.71' as the distance of the east side of the plat, although the sum of the component distances on the plat actually adds up to 655.83'. This appears to be a totaling error, but even if it is, that would not mean there is any "extra" distance to apportion to the lots on the block, since the sum of the lots (and the distances from the end lots to the center of the street) do add up to the correct number.
I apologize if this is a lot of information, but I wanted to provide enough detail to explain the issue clearly. I realize that surveying is complex and there may very well be valid reasons for the addition of the extra 0.01 foot to the width of this lot. Hopefully someone can explain it. Also, I I tried to add links to PDFs of the relevant surveys, but it wouldn't let me. It said I needed three posts before adding links, in order to prevent spam.
Thank you in advance for any clarity or explanation anyone can provide!
That is pretty much the best analysis by a lay person I have seen.
The lot, legally, is 30' wide (notice no decimals). In fact it may be something different like 29.95' or 30.01' as in your case. The lot is still legally 30' wide and the City may have messed up.
dmyhill, post: 372903, member: 1137 wrote: It [the plat] is not wrong.
Okay, "wrong" was probably a poor choice of words. I should have said, "Why was the measurement (of the sideline of the block) on the plat 0.12" shorter than the modern survey measurement?" And the answer seems to be either that surveying in 1907 wasn't as accurate as it is today or that the monuments moved, or both.
dmyhill, post: 372903, member: 1137 wrote: You will find that the issue here is NOT a bad survey. It is instead an issue that you have with the planning and zoning people in your jurisdiction. You are not alone in this, and I will point out that while elections have consequences, they never seem to change the bureaucracy. If you find out how to do that, please let me know.
I agree the issue is not one of surveying but of zoning. It's my impression that surveyors are extremely careful and precise, so if one of their measurements deviated from the plat, I assumed there had to be a good reason for it, which is why I asked the question in the thread title in the first place.
Robert Hill, post: 372916, member: 378 wrote: This was never a question concerning survey practice or procedure. This was a zoning problem and had nothing to do with the previous survey(s) or how they were performed. While the analysis of the survey data and plats are of interest, they bear no weight on this situation.
I agree this is definitely a zoning problem. More specifically, zoning codes written in a way that makes it too easy to comply with their letter while violating their intent. The reason for focusing on surveys and plat was so to learn how a lot could be defined to be one size at its creation and yet surveyed to be another.
Robert Hill, post: 372916, member: 378 wrote: This matter should have been taken to the public zoning hearing. An appeal should have been made to the local governing body that controls the zoning panel. Lawsuit could have been filed against the local zoning board for an improper decision. Yes, a lawyers, guns and money scenario. Horse is out of the barn at this time. The monolith has been assembled.
Monolith. I like that.
As my father would say, hindsight is 20/20. Had I known before construction started that the house would be as large as it is, or that its height would just barely comply with zoning law with a lot just 1/8" away from being too small, I probably would have taken up the matter with the city officials responsible for zoning compliance. But I didn't know any of this then and even if I had, I'm skeptical that it would have made any difference to the zoning officials, since they seem to rely heavily on the letter of the law. So I think you're right: it probably would have taken lawyers and a judge to have any chance at changing the outcome--an expensive undertaking whose outcome would have been far from certain.
Dave Karoly, post: 373021, member: 94 wrote: That is pretty much the best analysis by a lay person I have seen.
The lot, legally, is 30' wide (notice no decimals). In fact it may be something different like 29.95' or 30.01' as in your case. The lot is still legally 30' wide and the City may have messed up.
Thank you. And that was my initial thought too. I've tried searching for legal precedents in my state to see which prevails: the deed (and thus the plat it references) or the latest survey--without much success. But I did find a document named Washington Land Surveying Legal Reference Manual that states a difference of less than 0.5' between a measurement (between controlling monuments) on a survey and on a previously recorded plat is not considered a discrepancy.
Here's a link, for anyone interested
http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/eng_plso_legal_reference_manual.pdf
Based on everything I've read so far, it seems unlikely a judge would rule in my favor given the fact that the developer met the letter of the law using the information provided by the surveyor, who in turn exercised reasonable and customary professional judgment, and that the cost of a remedy to the developer at this point would be a substantial.
But perhaps I need to find a forum for lawyers and post this question there...
The conclusion:
Four days ago, I came across this website and posted my original question, which was how it could be that a lot that had its origin in unplatted land and was defined at its creation to be 30' wide could be accurately surveyed at 30.01' wide, and thus allow a three-story house to be built on one of the two narrowest lots on the block (literally blotting out the sun for its northern neighbor). The answer that seems most likely (to me anyway) is that the extra 0.01' was a prorated portion of a 0.12' error discovered between the length of the block given on the plat and the (longer) length recorded by the survey. The error itself may have its roots in less accurate surveying technology of 1907 or subsequent movement of monuments in the intervening 109 years, or both.
Because apportionment of error is accepted practice and reflected reasonable professional judgment of the surveyor (who is a highly skilled professional and licensed by the state), this appears to be a valid measurement. And because the city zoning authorities have accepted it and found that it complies with the letter of the law (if only just barely), there seems to be little chance of reversing the decision to permit this oversized house to be built--especially now that it is fully framed (a process, by the way, that took only a few weeks after the foundation was poured).
As many have pointed out, the real issue here is not with surveying, but with zoning rules written in such a way that one can comply with their letter and yet violate their intent. I believe this rule could be vastly improved simply by adding the words "after rounding to the nearest whole foot" when comparing a surveyed measurement to a limit defined in the code. And in fact, getting such a change made is what I will now attempt to do. It won't help me or my neighbors at this point, but it might help others. Wish me luck!
One good thing about this whole experience is that it's taught me a lot--about developers, deeds, legal descriptions, zoning law, construction permitting, and most of all: the complex art and science of surveying. I appreciate all the interest that so many of you have taken in my question and I'd like to thank everyone who contributed their knowledge and expertise to helping a layman understand more about the intricacies of your craft. I came here looking for answers and you provided them in spades and for that, I thank you!