Pretty much the instant someone writes the numbers down on the deed it's "off" from then forward based upon subsequent measurement.
Isn't the real test of whether a marker is "on" the landowners acceptance and reliance upon it. In my view it's whether the boundary is established at the marker that determines whether its "on" or not.
If the marker is "off" so to speak then it's not the corner why note it's position at all? Is the CALC'D location the Holy Grail? What does that have to do with the landowners establishment of boundary location? A boundary can't be established based upon a calc, there must be something physical on the ground to go by. If a marker is placed "off" the calc and the landowners adopt it and use it for sufficient time to establish the boundary location, then the marker is perfectly "on." A mathematical test shouldn't be applied to an established boundary location.
Jim Frame, post: 348092, member: 10 wrote: It all depends on the situation. In San Francisco's financial district, it's not uncommon to see boundary dimensions expressed to the nearest 0.001 foot and multi-million dollar lawsuits filed over half an inch. By the same token, I can recall being relieved and delighted to find a 1" pipe in a rural area bent over at a 45-degree angle and guestimating where its original plumb position was.
So instead of trying to misrepresent what we can measure as surveyors why don't we just put error ellipses around the points we compute and set for the zero inch high rent district clients. Their deed says they have 50' frontage. We measure the block and tell them they have 49.85' +- 0.1'. So it is our professional opinion to the client that they should not build a building with more than 49.65' frontage centered on the split of the two property corners I set on the frontage. This seems more logical and honest then reporting measurements to the thousand of a foot. We can end these absurdities of perfect measurements in an imperfect world. We as surveyors are the one that keep the absurdity going. A union carpenter on a high rise building once said I was off by 3/8 of an inch, my reply as I walked away was, if you can measure that good you don't need me because I canÛªt! My 2 cents, Jp
I'm with Leon...
If "math" (BS Numbers in DEEDS control), and monuments don't CONTROL, then WHY set any monuments at all???
Loyal
Tom Adams, post: 348195, member: 7285 wrote: I apologize for misreading your post. That 0.4' X 0.1' from the platted corner to the monument is not a good way to annotate the difference in my opinion. It's confusing to the reader or property owner, who might be saying to him/her-self gee...the actual corner is this much by that much from this found pin.
Also, how do you know exactly where the plat puts the corner in relation to the found monument? You are fixing it at some monuments somewhere I assume. what if you should be fixing it at that monument you are calling "off" and showing those other corners being out 0.y X o.y feet.
Anyway, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you original post, after giving my long rebuttal.
Here is something I just found this afternoon coincidentally... (see PDF attached)
I found 2 originally stone monuments that are shown on the filed subdivision plat. All the streets/properties are 90 degrees as per the plat. Holding those monument lines, in the blow up of the lot, i have the measurements to the house which check the old survey of the property done in 1931.
However i found brand new pins with caps and flagging in the rear that are 'off' 0.4' and 0.6' There is no way I can possibly just shrug my shoulders and say these must be the corners. IMHO this surveyor did a pretty crappy job since the monuments i found are visible and not even buried. In this instance, i disagree with where the surveyor put these pins via substantial evidence in my opinion.
this is not the case i wanted to ask you about. ill post that next as i really do want some insight as to what you would do, as i am looking for advice.
Tom Adams, post: 348195, member: 7285 wrote: I apologize for misreading your post. That 0.4' X 0.1' from the platted corner to the monument is not a good way to annotate the difference in my opinion. It's confusing to the reader or property owner, who might be saying to him/her-self gee...the actual corner is this much by that much from this found pin.
So enough of those bad pins haha. Here is a great case i would like to know what you/others would do...
I did a survey of this property, not in a platted subdivision. Its an old property on a very old road in the area. I traced the deed back a few deeds (as the new deeds have the same numbers but drop all the calls....go figure)
(***Please see attached PDF***)
The original deed states...
"along the westerly boundary of Weaver Street a distance of 55.74 feet to a monument;
thence N 72 22 00 W 226.06 feet to a monument;
thence N 0 25 10 W 350.45 feet to a monument:......."
The angle between the monuments work out great. The few house corners I do have from an old survey on file with the Town work out good as well. However, the distance between the two monuments is off. The monuments are definitely undisturbed. I can say that with 99.999% confidence. No lean. Very tucked away areas.
Do you show the geometric figure of the property as in the deed with just a measured distance and record distance? (as the original pink deeded line is on the PDF)
Or would you then change the last line from the angle point along weaver street to the monument as found? (as per the dashed line in the PDF)
There is no monument at the angle in weaver street.
It says "to a monument". You hold the monuments in place.
RADAR, post: 347959, member: 413 wrote: ...You do a survey in a small town .....
As much as I complain about the anal exam the county surveyors give surveys in Oregon, I must say that we don't have much of what you describe here in this state. The County Surveyor doesn't have the power to dictate boundary resolutions, but they do have the ability to turn bad actors into the board, and will do it now and then. Just knowing that another surveyor will review and ask questions is enough to discourage such things, to a degree.
In states without such review the state society could set up a panel of reviewers. Say 12 surveyors. If a surveyor saw another registrant producing substandard work he could submit his evidence to this review panel. If a 2/3 majority of this panel, in a secret ballot, agreed that it was substandard it could then be forwarded to the state board for formal investigation.
Monument is called for in the deed. If it is undisturbed, you hold it.
As a general rule, I would do whatever Dave Karoly says. Yes, hold the monuments if at all possible. "Along Weaver Street" is a strong call as well. See if there are other monuments that are called to be along weaver street. However, odds are that I would still hold the monument even if it put an uncalled-for kink in Weaver Street. Sometimes monuments make for jogs in senior lines even if those lines are supposed to be straight.
Again, my general philosophy is that you hold the monument unless you have compelling enough evidence to overcome the monument. (a good case might be that you believe the monument has been dug up and moved.) (but in this case, it sounds like you have strong belief that the monument is original, in its original position).
Draw the lines to the monuments and produced "measured and record" annotation (again in my opinion)
Yes weaver has an angle in it as per the deed. Then from said angle goes to the monument. So hold weaver lines as per deed until the angle and then go straight from angle (as located from deed) and draw a line straight from that to the mon? (Like the dashed line is on the pdf)
This in turn not only shortens the length in deed between mons (which is fine bc that's what it is) but also completely changes the angle/distance along weaver from the angle to the mon... which is the only thing stumping me
If I found monuments at every corner it would be cake to just put lines mon to mon
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Norman Oklahoma, post: 348235, member: 9981 wrote: Monument is called for in the deed. If it is undisturbed, you hold it.
Oh yes no doubt hold both mon and show the new distance. It's down a hill of rough terrain so it's no surprise the deed distance is too long.
But what to do about the line along the street leading to the mon? Hold the record to the angle and then just put the line from the angle to the mon as shown by the dashed line in my pdf uploaded above?
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
I'd suggest that any calling out of sub-standard work follow this order:
1) Disclosing surveyor (or County Surveyor) to sub-standard surveyor.
2) If sub-standard surveyor isn't getting it, have Review Panel (or Professional Practices Committee in CLSA Chapters) review it and notify sub-standard surveyor as appropriate.
3) If sub-standard surveyor still isn't getting it, have Review Panel forward it to the Board.
We all make mistakes, are still learning, and have conditions in life and work that make "dotting every i" difficult so I think we deserve more than 1 strike before we are put through the expense, time, and trouble of responding to a board investigation. And that's without considering that a board investigation ain't exactly a review by a jury of your peers.
I would suggest that 0.997 acre does conform to a 1 acre minimum. Think significant digits. Unless the minimum is stated as 1.000 acre...
Dave Karoly, post: 348231, member: 94 wrote: It says "to a monument". You hold the monuments in place.
Thanks Dave. Yes I agree hold the monuments at the corners but concern is the line before the mon. Please read my response 2 posts above for more input. Thanks again
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
But what does the ellipse of the 49.65' measurement look like? Better go with 49.6'. And set the building face a tenth behind the R/W line.:bored:
Brian Allen, post: 348076, member: 1333 wrote: .....I understood the OP to be a complaint about so called "surveyorsÛ exclusively using math and record data projected from distant monuments to apparently either reject found monuments or not being specific about if they are accepting the found pins or not. I may be way out to lunch, but if I find capped monuments a few tenths from a reasonable search position estimated from a 1908 plat, IÛªd have to have a dang good reason to reject them, especially in favor of some mythical, non-existent "record position".
Well; I guess it does sound like I was complaining. To me, this surveyor was vague about accepting or rejecting the rebar and caps set by a previous retracing surveyor. In fact, the previous retracing surveyor was adjusting boundary lines within the old plat (to fit the needs of the owners, not resolve a boundary dispute) and this new survey was to further modify those lines.
I am assuming that he accepts the rebar and caps as the corners and is showing the relationship to calculated plat positions, based on the 2 brassy's, 800 feet away. But he is totally leaving that up to me....
You said his point to point dimensions match the plat? I take that to mean he's located the plat points and is calling the rebars out of position? Not that this helps explain the why...
I had the pleasure of having a piece of my work posted on this board this morning, and having my failure to "dot an i" exposed. So I'm definitely not one to judge another for such transgressions.
This is what i am talking about....
"...I am assuming that he accepts the rebar and caps as the corners and is showing the relationship to calculated plat positions, based on the 2 brassy's, 800 feet away. But he is totally leaving that up to me...."
I read that as calling the many found monuments as being off the corners.
FWIW, describing a found monument simply as a "brassie" probably wouldn't pass muster in Austin, and it certainly won't in PDX. It's not just me saying this. The county surveyor would insist on noting the color of the caps, for example, and whether they are plastic or aluminum. They would need a lot more detail about these "brassies". Are they in concrete or on a rod? In a mon box or at surface? Etc, Etc.
