> OMG, you actually believe all you have to do is cogo this and you know everything you need to know.
Not hardly, not even by any stretch of the imagination.
Either you are being sarcastic or you misunderstand my perception of the project at hand. Based upon the mathematical model to be derived by cogo, I expect it to be used in conjunction with a field search for the predicted location of controlling corners that would have to be found in order to make the desired survey.
Upon completion, I fully expect the property to have been surveyed not engineered.
My comment was based on this statement: "As I understand the situation, the task at hand is to cogo Lot 24 in Block D, and this can quite readily be done from the plat."
That might get you within 0.05 feet or 50 feet of where you are headed, depending on many factors. Every subdivision is somewhat different. They can be terribly different depending on what has happened over time by a dozen or more different surveyors working within what they believe to be the same set of constraints. In this case, nearly 40 acres of an aliquot part were placed in a single subdivision 90 years ago. What is the guarantee that all monuments currently used to define the entire section and its appropriate breakdown are the identical and undisturbed monuments from 90 years ago? What is the relative level of precision that applies today compared to then? How has the outer shape of that aliquot changed? Did the subdivision surveyor actually monument every lot or every block or centers of street intersections? What have 90 years worth of surveyors done since that time? Does the subject block have something like eight of 10 lots surveyed in the past 20 years in precise agreement with one another but in total disagreement with a cogo of the plat? Which monuments placed by surveyors have been bent, torn out or conveniently relocated by someone with a vested interest in their location? These, and many other questions, must be addressed along the way. A simple cogo and finding of things that appear to be surveyor-set monuments terribly close to the cogo location does not mean much of anything without a full study of the entire block and adjoining proof that can only be found in the field.
The ship sailed on a section breakdown much too long ago to be of any concern. And, upon comparison of the CCR’s to the record plats for the subject and adjoining additions, it is quite obvious that the monuments are not the same as when the property was subdivided.
As can be seen from the record plat, monuments were set at only the four exterior block corners, one of which is truncated and one of which is common to the lot of concern. Under the circumstances, I would expect to find the record monument at this corner within about a foot of its predicted location with respect to the southwest corner of the ¼ section as defined by its CCR. I would then proceed to find all of the existing monuments that might control the boundaries by cloth tape, yellow stick and shovel. After which I would winnow the wheat from the chafe, so to speak.
That sounds much better.
I tried to get to the plat via the link provided, but failed. Not the first time, not the last. Ms. Haynie looks like someone I wouldn't mind meeting, though.
You should be able to get it. Your problem might be the result of clicking on the plat reference in the description column after completing the third step below.
If it works, it takes the following four steps to get to the plat.
1) On the page with Ms. Haynie click on search
2) Accept the disclaimer on the next page
3) On the next page, click on search after entering the plat reference in the BookPage dialog boxes,
4) Click on view image in the column to the far right
OK. So nearly all north-south lines are to be perpendicular to the east line of the quarter-quarter and east-west lines are to be perpendicular to the north line of the quarter-quarter. The error is thrown to the south side and west side. Angles and measurements may be subject to whatever they are today as opposed to the numbers provided. As it is futile to ignore the three sides of the quarter-quarter for which you don't have handy-dandy bearings/coordinates, it is imperative to determine those true bearings/coordinates or pitch every thing and find harmony amongst survey monuments discovered during the field work. The bigger question is how do things really exist today? Have prior surveyors double proportioned numerical differences or thrown any differences to the far south and west? Have variations been created that alter the road widths such that they are not consistently the exact width shown on the plat? Development appears to have come from the east and then headed north. Or did it? Were all four additions to Country Club Section actually platted simultaneously but given four different names? It is odd to see a plat acknowledging the next in a series of subdivisions as happens here with Fourth Addition annotated above the Third Addition plat. The notes indicate monuments were set per the law in effect in February 1926. What does that mean?
Always willing to learn.
I trust you meant parallel instead of perpendicular. If so, we are pretty much on the same page.
You are right concerning the order of development. The first plat was recorded in L-83 in October 1925; the plat of the second addition was recorded in M-68 in Dec. ’25, and the plats of the third, fourth and fifth additions were recorded in N-87, 88 & 89 in Feb. ’26. The note concerning monuments pertains to the Permanent Reference Monuments that were set at the extremities of the plat. If they still exist, then completion of the survey could prove to be fairly easy other than the fact that it could take upwards of 4000 LF of traverse to make what could be perceived to be a simple lot survey. One can only hope that the answer to the bigger question, which of course can only be found in the field, will not upset the applecart.
Thanks for replying! There aren't any bearings on the plat, so I figured I needed bearings on the section lines to calculate my lot.