Jim_H, post: 372888, member: 11536 wrote: 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.
I understand the argument for proportioning error, and I can see the benefits of it. Of course, in this case, it had an adverse side effect--at least from the point of view of the owners of the neighboring houses.
I think a case could be made that it would have been less disruptive to allocate the entire error amount (all 0.12' of it) to the northernmost lot on the block. This would have brought its eastern side from 39.83' up to 39.95'--much closer to the 40' lot at the south end of the block. It also would have preserved the original widths of every other lot and kept their boundary lines in the same position, instead of slightly moving them all.
Of course, had the error amount been larger, dumping it all into one lot would have been impractical.
LookingForAnswers, post: 373088, member: 11710 wrote: I understand the argument for proportioning error, and I can see the benefits of it. Of course, in this case, it had an adverse side effect--at least from the point of view of the owners of the neighboring houses.
I think a case could be made that it would have been less disruptive to allocate the entire error amount (all 0.12' of it) to the northernmost lot on the block. This would have brought its eastern side from 39.83' up to 39.95'--much closer to the 40' lot at the south end of the block. It also would have preserved the original widths of every other lot and kept their boundary lines in the same position, instead of slightly moving them all.
Of course, had the error amount been larger, dumping it all into one lot would have been impractical.
The zoning code should be evaluated against accuracy, not precision. It is accurate to say the Lot is 30' wide; the fact that the Lot is 30.01' wide is a statement of precision. Most zoning administrators don't get this, however.
Proportionate methods have their basis in two principles. One principle is equitable where a Court will distribute the error most fairly among the Lots if the original stakes can't be found. This generally applies to Platted subdivisions, not metes and bounds type Deeds. The other is based in statistics, that is it is assumed the original surveyor's measurement errors were proportionate to length throughout the subdivision and proportionate measure is the best method to restore the corners in their most probable original positions.
Dave Karoly, post: 373102, member: 94 wrote: Proportionate methods have their basis in two principles.
And the third principle of 'adjusting my chain' to match the previous surveyor's chain...calibrating footsteps...
DDSM:beer::beer::beer:
Dave Karoly, post: 373102, member: 94 wrote: The zoning code should be evaluated against accuracy, not precision. It is accurate to say the Lot is 30' wide; the fact that the Lot is 30.01' wide is a statement of precision. Most zoning administrators don't get this, however.
Proportionate methods have their basis in two principles. One principle is equitable where a Court will distribute the error most fairly among the Lots if the original stakes can't be found. This generally applies to Platted subdivisions, not metes and bounds type Deeds. The other is based in statistics, that is it is assumed the original surveyor's measurement errors were proportionate to length throughout the subdivision and proportionate measure is the best method to restore the corners in their most probable original positions.
Well Put!
LookingForAnswers, post: 373088, member: 11710 wrote: I understand the argument for proportioning error, and I can see the benefits of it. Of course, in this case, it had an adverse side effect--at least from the point of view of the owners of the neighboring houses.
I think a case could be made that it would have been less disruptive to allocate the entire error amount (all 0.12' of it) to the northernmost lot on the block. This would have brought its eastern side from 39.83' up to 39.95'--much closer to the 40' lot at the south end of the block. It also would have preserved the original widths of every other lot and kept their boundary lines in the same position, instead of slightly moving them all.
Of course, had the error amount been larger, dumping it all into one lot would have been impractical.
Good observation. The intent of your plat was that excess or deficiencies go into the last lot (if I am recalling correctly). However You would do that in the very first survey who stakes the interior lot corners. If you come back 50 years later, there might be some found interior corners, that meet within an acceptable precision error circle. At that point you might proportion between existing interior lot corners.
Mr. Karoly had an excellent post, understanding what he is saying would help immensely in your understanding. The problem you have is that your planners (or county commissioners, or City Counsel) don't have this understanding, and they are "boss". It could only get resolved in a court. And the court might still side with the ruling government officials making it another (expensive) exercise in futility.
Dave Karoly, post: 373102, member: 94 wrote: The zoning code should be evaluated against accuracy, not precision. It is accurate to say the Lot is 30' wide; the fact that the Lot is 30.01' wide is a statement of precision. Most zoning administrators don't get this, however.
Proportionate methods have their basis in two principles. One principle is equitable where a Court will distribute the error most fairly among the Lots if the original stakes can't be found. This generally applies to Platted subdivisions, not metes and bounds type Deeds. The other is based in statistics, that is it is assumed the original surveyor's measurement errors were proportionate to length throughout the subdivision and proportionate measure is the best method to restore the corners in their most probable original positions.
Legally the lot is 30 feet, I would argue that it's has to be considered a 30 foot wide lot.
That should preclude allowing a non-conforming use. However, good luck explaining that to the regulators.
Also, I wouldn't consider .01' to be "error" in a 30 foot lot. Anymore than I would consider .0001' to be error in a 30.00' lot.
