Working on a small lot for a fence installation. In the era when this plat was drawn (1948) it was common practice to provide for a 20’ radius at the intersection of the road right of ways. The radius would be drawn in without dimensions and there would be a note, something to the effect of “all street intersections subject to 20’ radius, distances are to the street intersections”.
In this case, the radius is drawn in but there is no note or dimension describing the radius.
Furthermore, the lot I am working on is the west 125’ of lot 6 cut out of the whole of lot 6 and the deed description has metes and bounds calls that don’t mention the radius, the calls just follow with the record plat except the 190’ lines are now 125’. I found the iron at the right of way intersection.
How would you handle the implied radius?
I’m kind of thinking “lot may be subject to 20’ radius at street intersection” and then dimension the curve.
Not a big deal for the purpose of the survey, just wondering.
I would take the map, overlay that in my cad file and see if a standard curve would work. If 20' radius fits then I would use it. The streets have a radius on the curve and I would map it that way. Many streets in my neck of the woods are similar and I have discussed with DOT, as long as the survey gives them the area they are maintaining (usually the top of bank of the ditch) then they will accept the surveyors opinion
I would show the lines that extend from the PC/PT to the found monument at the corner as dashed, and show the solid curve line, drawn at whatever the radius scales at, rounded to the nearest 5' ... label the found monument as a reference or witness corner, and dimension the dashed lines to the monument as extensions of the right-of-way/property line.
You have got brgs and distances all the around that thing... assuming that BOTH radiusus are the same, well, you can calc it. Of course, the field meas. can be used, but I'd fo sho calc it and see.
Perim lots 5 6 11 12.
N
How would you calc the radii from the information on the plat?
I can get a delta and the other angular data for the curve but all of the distances are to the PI.
Please show your work 😉
Is there an A.P. on the east right-of-way across from Lots 10 & 11.
Yeah, off topic but I had to ask.
Are you in a filing state?
If so, are there other surveys in the area that reflect a common/accepted 20' radius?
You could always drive around the subdivision an look at other intersections to help validate your concerns via occupancy, any other monuments found, etc. Just to establish a precedence.
Seems like if the plat says "...20' radius...", that makes the decision easy. That type of note is very common around these parts, especially in older paper plats where not much was monumented.
Working on a small lot for a fence installation. In the era when this plat was drawn (1948) it was common practice to provide for a 20’ radius at the intersection of the road right of ways.
I would make the statement about common practice and that the plat was in agreement with that statement but no radius was specified therefore you used a 20 foot radius because it was typical and common at the time the Plat was created. There should not be a metes and bounds description around the Lot, Lot 6 of such and such Subdivision is a perfectly good description and also part of the first description, "Plat", creating every Lot in the Subdivision. To divide the lot would only require a statement about the division of lot 6, IE, the west 60 feet of Lot 6 ---. If you show the metes and bounds, then use light dashed lines with an attached note stating what it represents and the recording number of that document. Feel free to place the same value on this, as was payed for it, you probably don't need my advice.
Removed my later post because I looked at the data given closer and the Tangent length is not given.
jud
When I have run into this situation I have used the plat to "scale" the radius. I agree that 20' was pretty much standard. With the delta angle and an assumed radius of 20' you can calc the rest. A note on your survey describing what you have done allows the next surveyor to follow in your footsteps. Unless there are some existing features that would cause problems you are not detailing, thats about the best you can be expected to do.
but all of the distances are to the PI.
I think I missed that tidbit.
OK, make something up.
Patron saint of surveyors... "Our lady of assumption!"
🙂
N
> ...when this plat was drawn (1948) it was common practice to provide for a 20’ radius at the intersection of the road right of ways.
If you work in this jurisdiction a lot, it might be worth your while to find the origin of such a "common practice". There might be some code or regulation that specifies the radius to be used.
But, failing that, a note as per Jud's response would be a good idea.
Hopefully, there are no encroachments......;-)
Scan map.
Trace curved line.
List properties for radius.
Be attracted to nearest round nummer.
Stephen
I have to agree with Jud and Sicilian Cowboy, adding:
do your best research,
show what you think it is,
add a note explaining what you decide and move on.
We are to show the facts. The map shows the radius, the dimensions are not clear. Something has to give.
KS
Last night I inserted the image into cadd and oriented and rescaled it. That radius constructed out at 20 feet on the nose.
> Last night I inserted the image into cadd and oriented and rescaled it. That radius constructed out at 20 feet on the nose.
:good: 🙂
Stupid question: Given only a legal description and assuming no "common practice" in the area, does a point of curvature have to be interpreted as one of a tangent curve? Further assume that a tangent solution and a non tangent solution yield similar results. The legal in a rural tract I recently surveyed cited only a radius, no delta.
No mention of tangency or otherwise. The radius point was the rp of a center pivot. The tract had been surveyed and didnt close worth a crap.
> Stupid question: Given only a legal description and assuming no "common practice" in the area, does a point of curvature have to be interpreted as one of a tangent curve? Further assume that a tangent solution and a non tangent solution yield similar results. The legal in a rural tract I recently surveyed cited only a radius, no delta.
> No mention of tangency or otherwise. The radius point was the rp of a center pivot. The tract had been surveyed and didnt close worth a crap.
#1: Not a stupid question.
#2: TYPICALLY a PC would be assumed to have a tangent curve, but that is not always the case. Best way to check is to calculate the curve through the chord bearing and distance, assuming that the data is given. (BTW, I just prepared a written description for a parcel that I found the monuments for the tangent in, the PC and the departing lot line at a POC and described it as a "non-tangent curve to the left having a delta, radius, arc length, and a chord bearing and distance") Oh... I re-read it... sorry.
#3: calculate the parcel starting at the PT (leave curve out of it) and calc around to the PC. See if the misclose/missing segment looks anything like your curve if you use a distance-distance intersect to create the RP... couldn't hurt.
#4: Good luck.
Carl
> I would take the map, overlay that in my cad file and see if a standard curve would work. If 20' radius fits then I would use it. The streets have a radius on the curve and I would map it that way. Many streets in my neck of the woods are similar and I have discussed with DOT, as long as the survey gives them the area they are maintaining (usually the top of bank of the ditch) then they will accept the surveyors opinion
That exactly what we would do in a situation like this (using tangent curves,of course)
Your suggestion of backing into a possible solution, ie, running from the pt on around back to the pc is a really good idea. The next time this issue arises, I will definitely give that a try. Thanks.