You take the record geometry of the plat and best fit it to the pins found. I prefer that some of those pins found are located on the boundary of the plat, but that doesn't always happen.
> If the subdivision is mostly built out or if one of the adjoiners has been built on you cannot come in after the fact and move an original monument that has been relied upon by the public. At that point in time its' too late, hold the mons.
I disagree, the builder can say he relied on that monument but he may have relocated that monument to match his screw-up too. For the sake of argument, say you surveyed the whole subdivision and that one monument is the only one that doesn't fit. I'm gonna call that monument wrong I don't care who has built what and where.
This one is easy
Jim,
I would personally have no issue with such a reg as stated with one caveat - if any pin "to be set" is not consistent with the stated monumentation on the face of the filed plat, a revised plat must be filed.
One of the problems I have with letting a plat out before all monuments are set has to do with a common place situation at a former employers office. They released plats of a few lots (maybe four or five) all the time. They had not set the new corners. A (way toooo) long while down the road, someone actually wanted the corners set. I had not been involved with the original work, but I went to set the corners and tied enough down to be able to do so. Low and behold, where the filed plat called for a iron pin with a cap, there was a tree smack dab in the way.
If we're only to lock down the plat geometry and set another monument where that math says one should be, ignoring all other evidence (use, possession, etc), why do we need a license?
> If we're only to lock down the plat geometry and set another monument where that math says one should be, ignoring all other evidence (use, possession, etc), why do we need a license?
Locking down the plat geometry is the first step in a survey of a platted lot, I didn't say a word about setting another pin. We are discussing a platted subdivision where all the pins were set by the original surveyor and we come along found some good, some bad, what do we have to hold? My contention is that we do not have to hold every pin found just because it has been used by some incompetent public Joe.
Other evidence comes into play when we do not find monuments.
Larco has it...he does?
"Maybe where you practice zoning has nothing to do with it, but around here it sure does. If decide a lot is 2' short of zoning criteria, its going to cost a lot of money to get that lot thru ZBA."
In 40 years I have never heard that surveying decisions should be affected by zoning. If a parcel doesn't mee zoning criteria its not my problem.
"All I'm saying is you better do the proper research to defend your opinion. What works in one jurisdiction may not fly in another."
Absolutely, and Absolutely. One reason I restrict my pracict to certain areas I have experience in.
> First off, I doubt any city or town is going to deny a lot owner a right to build over a few square feet of lot area.
>
Come to Massachusetts.
-V
Or Maryland. People have been forced to tear down houses and piers (at their own expense of course) that "are just a few feet over".....
Part of the problem is terminology. I know all the local
surveying rednecks call a steel tape a chain and a transit is a gun.
I think surveyors can do better than use the term pin. Is a pin
a hair pin, a rebar, a pipe, a piece of iron, etc? If you find the
original monument out of position in a pin cushion, which monument
is the 'pin'? Is the pin, steel, iron, copper, or aluminum? What
is its diameter? Is it set at grade or above or below? What is its
location relative to occupation?
I have seen a subdivision where no corner was closer than 3 feet.
If there was something set better than 3 feet, it was not the original.
Rear corners were set by winging 90 degrees from the front lot corners.
A radius point for a cul-de-sac was a pk nail cushion. Lot corners set
in concrete were in error the most. Lot closures must have been
determined by using a scale.
You are helping prove my point. That level of incompetence by the field crew is obviously not the intent of the survey professional of record who signed the plat.
> You are helping prove my point. That level of incompetence by the field crew is obviously not the intent of the survey professional of record who signed the plat.
Well, then maybe the "professional of record" ought to get his butt out from behind the desk and into the field on occasion.
Remember, the supposedly incompetent field crew was working under the responsible charge of the professional, therefore it IS HIS WORK and therefore his intent.
His intent was to set the points according to the plat, concede the point that if he doesn't check the competence of the crew it is his FAULT but still not his intent. If he dies and was never made aware of how the crew messed things up that is no excuse for a subsequent surveyor to accept those pins as gospel.
> > If we're only to lock down the plat geometry and set another monument where that math says one should be, ignoring all other evidence (use, possession, etc), why do we need a license?
>
> Locking down the plat geometry is the first step in a survey of a platted lot, I didn't say a word about setting another pin. We are discussing a platted subdivision where all the pins were set by the original surveyor and we come along found some good, some bad, what do we have to hold? My contention is that we do not have to hold every pin found just because it has been used by some incompetent public Joe.
>
> Other evidence comes into play when we do not find monuments.
Are you saying that since the public used a monument that may or may not have been set in error they are incompetent? This is why original monuments hold regardless of error...or at least one of the reasons. How is the new property owner to know that the the pins he just strung a line between to establish his building setback was wrong. If the subdivision pins are original and in they're original position, regardless of mathmateical error when compared to the plat, they hold.
I just realized "plat" or "subdivision" may have a different meaning in other states but up in this area they refer to a new parcel(s) of land created simultaneously by the preparation and recording of a plat. With very few exceptions this will ALWAYS involve some sort of governmental review and process.
I had a fence contractor pull out several section corners around a major lake when the Game & Parks Commission hired him to put in a new fence. Then he redrove the capped pins back into the ground near the fence corners.
Two reasons I knew they had been moved. 1. I ALWAYS orient the cap to north. 2. My ties did not fit where I had previously tied it out. I just happen to be in the area and saw the new fence so went to investigate.
Lets say for sake of argument that 25 years goes by, I am long gone, and another surveyor thinks the fence is old. Is he going to move the monuments back? Probably not.
The situation really gets difficult when we are dealing with lot pins in a subdivision. You have not been surveying long enough if you have never had a property owner tell you he had reset the pin, or a utility contractor reset the pin, or you have just found a piece of junk that looks like a property pin.
It pains me to read surveyor discussions about holding "original monuments" when they have no idea if that monument is even where it was originally placed. The focus is often in the wrong direction and surveyors have done more damage by holding something just because that is where they found it.
Right WA-ID Surveyor and although ownership lines may shift, those Platted Partition or Subdivision Lines do not unless they are re-platted. Boundary line adjustment within those platted lands will create 3 unique tracts of land, 2 of them will then be "non-complying" for planning purposes and that creates financing problems and the obtaining of building permits imposable until the tracts are brought back into compliance. Zoning and planning has had a huge impact on what a Surveyor does today compared to what we did before there were such programs taking the enjoyment and control of lands away from the owners.
jud
> I had a fence contractor pull out several section corners around a major lake when the Game & Parks Commission hired him to put in a new fence. Then he redrove the capped pins back into the ground near the fence corners.
>
> Two reasons I knew they had been moved. 1. I ALWAYS orient the cap to north. 2. My ties did not fit where I had previously tied it out. I just happen to be in the area and saw the new fence so went to investigate.
>
> Lets say for sake of argument that 25 years goes by, I am long gone, and another surveyor thinks the fence is old. Is he going to move the monuments back? Probably not.
>
> The situation really gets difficult when we are dealing with lot pins in a subdivision. You have not been surveying long enough if you have never had a property owner tell you he had reset the pin, or a utility contractor reset the pin, or you have just found a piece of junk that looks like a property pin.
>
> It pains me to read surveyor discussions about holding "original monuments" when they have no idea if that monument is even where it was originally placed. The focus is often in the wrong direction and surveyors have done more damage by holding something just because that is where they found it.
You're missing my point entirely.....if they are in there original position...emphasis on orginal...then they hold. How to determine if they are original? Isn't that why we're licensed?
I do get your point. Unless you have been at that exact location observing constantly from day one, you cannot call a monument "original" if it is out of position. Your first question should not be whether you hold the monument, but rather why is it out of position. Just because you assume it is in its original position doesn't make it so. Surveyors are getting way too hung up on the idea that anything they find in an upright position has always been at that exact location.
What if you came back to your own survey 15 years later and find a pin way out of position. Are you going to assume you made a mistake and placed it there, and thereby hold the wrong position, or are you going to assume someone moved it?
>
> What if you came back to your own survey 15 years later and find a pin way out of position. Are you going to assume you made a mistake and placed it there, and thereby hold the wrong position, or are you going to assume someone moved it?
I don't think that paragraph contributed anything at all to the discussion.
Read the man's last sentence about professional evaluation.
If a monument is out of position, we will determine if or how the misplacement occurred and offer an opinion.
Don't go all black and white.
Don
Trust me; I've written several articles about this:-)
If you've never gotten tore up over this belief in court or in a complaint against your license, you've been lucky.
If this is how you really practice, it goes against one of, if not the most basic tenet of boundary law. It is the actual survey as made on the ground that controls over other particulars as shown on a map of the survey or a description made in supposed accordance with the survey.
The courts have repeatedly held that the map is a representation of the survey actually made and that the survey made, and the marks thereof recognized by the landowners represent the true intent and if the map is in parts at variance with the marks left on the ground, that is a failing of the map maker in presenting the survey fully or accurately.
Same with a description. When it is written inreference to a survey or in contemplation of a survey, it is but an attempt to describe what has actually been done or what will be done in the actual survey. If it is at variance with the marks on the ground left during the survey, it is the inability to adequately or accurately describe the actions of the survey with mere words.
After reviewing hundreds, perhaps more, appellate level rulings of boundary cases, i have yet to see one that goes the other way, or at least that was not overruled by a higher court.
I'd be very interested if you have such a case you could share with us.
Dave,
You present the problem statement lacking sufficient detail to adequately answer the question. And you ask the question as if a knee jerk response that one should always ignore the monuments which appear to be off line in favor of the map geometry, or one should always accept monuments as found, regardless of their apparent variance from map geometry from other adjacent monuments.
It's never that simple.
Tell us what else you've looked for and found in the field, in documentary evidence, and among what local landowners can tell you about the points.
