I don't run into a lot of situations where the measured and record distances between found monuments vary, and I have to subdivide the line. I've done many surveys where I'm retracing, and I can simply state the facts on the drawing that a line was platted as this, and I measured this.
Well now, I have a platted lot (rectangular) that I'm splitting into two, and I found all 4 original corners, capped, and good condition. However, the measured distance between two of the corners is quite a bit off considering the age of the survey, technology, etc. at the time (about 0.40') Now if I have to subdivide the line (for discussion let's just say in half) is it half of the measured or record distance - where do you put the corner?
Probably not an easy answer, but I just wanted to gather some wisdom from our community on a situation I don't deal with often.
This is a very awkward situation. Particularly when frontage, or area, or both, are an issue.
I have been informed that the plan dimensions hold for zoning issues, but the bounds will control for layout? If the lot has 100' of frontage and you measure 99.6' and you want to divide into two 50' frontage lots (assume that zoning requires 50' frontage) then your plan will show 50' frontage and you'll set the corner at 49.8'.
As it was explained to me the purchase was for a lot with 100' of frontage. The shortened distance is not applicable to the zoning enforcement officer.
I have not run into this practice, or had to use it, but it's an option.
Dtp
what's the record distance? is it 100' or 100.0' or 100.00'?
and what happens when you go the other direction from those monuments? do the adjoiners have what they are supposed to?
Everything else measures out. It's 100.00 feet, the plat is from around 2000.
foggyidea, post: 386567, member: 155 wrote: If the lot has 100' of frontage and you measure 99.6' and you want to divide into two 50' frontage lots (assume that zoning requires 50' frontage) then your plan will show 50' frontage and you'll set the corner at 49.8'.
In California we have a word for that: fraud.
Assuming that you have verified the two corners and they are truly short by 0.4', I would split the measured distance. If there is a zoning issue, you probably can get a variance under the circumstances. I would not be comfortable with showing anything but measured distances on the SD Plat. I have heard if a particular surveyor that could get ten 100 foot rectangular lots out of 990 feet of frontage. When does it stop being practical and starts being fraud?
Allen Wrench, post: 386573, member: 6172 wrote: Everything else measures out. It's 100.00 feet, the plat is from around 2000.
well, regardless, first thing i'd do is show the client what is on the ground. if you're bound to 50' minimum width, doesn't strike me it's your issue to solve (of course, i'm down here where we do things slightly different than most other states).
when i run into this (which happens on a fairly regular basis- which is different than "fairly often"), i don't consider my area of expertise to include deciding how to make what "is" comply with what's "supposed to."
Jim Frame, post: 386576, member: 10 wrote: In California we have a word for that: fraud.
Foggy, I'm glad you haven't run into this issue, or "had to apply" that solution, as it is blatantly wrong. Zoning should be based on the reality of what's on the ground, not on imaginary numbers from somebody else's screw up. As Imbris mentioned, a variance or special permit is in order when a zoning violation is created inadvertently.
In the real world, when a certain number of lots of a specific width were created, it is next to impossible to find all of the monuments to be precisely that distance apart and on a single line. It may be 99.98 on one and 100.04 on the next followed by another 99.98, but they add up to the intended 300.00. For that matter, the true precision with which they were measured today may be more sloppy than the precision with which they were measured when set. Fancy equipment does not equal fancy precision.
I certainly don't mean to be insulting, but is the OP a registered surveyor?
I agree with Holy. But if the the original presumably undisturbed end monuments, platted at 2000' apart, measure 1999.6', then the math doesn't add up, if you make all the lots 100' - obviously.
Allen Wrench, post: 386562, member: 6172 wrote: I have a platted lot (rectangular) that I'm splitting into two, and I found all 4 original corners, capped, and good condition.
What the else do you need to know?
You are retracing the original boundaries and apparently have found the original corners.
Do you have evidence that they have been moved from their original position? Have they been relied upon? Is there evidence that the boundaries have been established elsewhere by one of the other establishment doctrines?
In a retracement situation, the corners are where you find them - not where they were "supposed to be".
As to how you subdivide the line, I'd present the facts to the landowner and help him work out and solve any potential problems.
Brian Allen, post: 386601, member: 1333 wrote: What the else do you need to know?
You are retracing the original boundaries and apparently have found the original corners.
Do you have evidence that they have been moved from their original position? Have they been relied upon? Is there evidence that the boundaries have been established elsewhere by one of the other establishment doctrines?
In a retracement situation, the corners are where you find them - not where they were "supposed to be".
As to how you subdivide the line, I'd present the facts to the landowner and help him work out and solve any potential problems.
Yes, I agree with you that the foundation is all there and set in stone essentially. I'm not disputing the found monuments, just wondering what to do going forward. If it's plus or minus a few hundredths, I usually just show it on the drawing as being record distance, since it all balances out. In this case, it's a large lot and they're splitting off plenty of land, so it won't make or break any zoning issues. In this case I think it's far enough off that I can't just "tweak" out the few hundredths, so the plat and legal description will be record where it's close, and measured where it's not.
Allen Wrench, post: 386562, member: 6172 wrote: I don't run into a lot of situations where the measured and record distances between found monuments vary, and I have to subdivide the line. I've done many surveys where I'm retracing, and I can simply state the facts on the drawing that a line was platted as this, and I measured this.
Well now, I have a platted lot (rectangular) that I'm splitting into two, and I found all 4 original corners, capped, and good condition. However, the measured distance between two of the corners is quite a bit off considering the age of the survey, technology, etc. at the time (about 0.40') Now if I have to subdivide the line (for discussion let's just say in half) is it half of the measured or record distance - where do you put the corner?
Probably not an easy answer, but I just wanted to gather some wisdom from our community on a situation I don't deal with often.
If you are splitting the lot into two halves distance has little to do with it. Outside the PLSS halves are calculated by area, not by distance.
Jim in AZ, post: 386610, member: 249 wrote: If you are splitting the lot into two halves distance has little to do with it. Outside the PLSS halves are calculated by area, not by distance.
Well, I said half for discussion sake. In reality, it's more like the south 200' of Lot 2, Block 2, whatever subdivision. If the lot is 400x1000, we are taking a piece 400x200 off the south end of the rectangle. I may do this as a dividing line description - where it reads "that part of Lot 2 lying south of the following described line" and then have all the math on the accompanying plat.
Peter Lothian - MA ME, post: 386584, member: 4512 wrote: Foggy, I'm glad you haven't run into this issue, or "had to apply" that solution, as it is blatantly wrong. Zoning should be based on the reality of what's on the ground, not on imaginary numbers from somebody else's screw up. As Imbris mentioned, a variance or special permit is in order when a zoning violation is created inadvertently.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, I'm not sure that I agree with this. For instance, you go out and monument a subdivision that you have created for a client and the required frontage is 100' and you inadvertently set a bound 0.1' short, or long, does that create a zoning violation? I don't think so, the purchase was per the plan and the plan showed 100'.
5 years later you go out there and stake an addition, are you going to show a lot with deficient frontage because you set the bound wrong? How about 25 years later after the bounds you set have been used and depended on by the neighbors? Is the lot non-conforming? I don't think so.
Jim Frame, where is the fraud in reporting the truth?
foggyidea, post: 386848, member: 155 wrote: Jim Frame, where is the fraud in reporting the truth?
It's a Clintonian truth ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"). If the standard of practice is to express measured distances to the nearest 0.01 foot, and you deliberately express some of them to the nearest foot in order to conceal the fact that the distance is actually less than the value shown, that's fraud. It may not be criminal fraud, but I'm CA it would, in my opinion, be grounds for sanction against the practitioner's license.
I have a confession to make: I did this very thing many years ago when a client was concerned that a map I prepared in support of a planning application showed his house 2.7 feet from the lot line where a 3-foot minimum was required. He asked me to change the dimension to 3' (no decimals); I hemmed and hawed, but I did it. I felt slimy thereafter, and vowed never to do it again.
The problem, if there is one, lies with the planning department. If they can't see that 49.8 feet across an existing lot substantially meets a 50-foot requirement, they need educating.
Jim Frame, post: 386868, member: 10 wrote: It's a Clintonian truth ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is").
The problem, if there is one, lies with the planning department. If they can't see that 49.8 feet across an existing lot substantially meets a 50-foot requirement, they need educating.
There was a thread here about this, a lot (platted at 50' frontage) was prorated to be 50.10 or some such, enabling the owner to add some amount of height to the building. So, yes, some departments need education, I suppose.
The problem is perspective, I think. Planning looks at the rules, and that is it. We look at bona fide boundary rights and entitlements as very important (they are the basis of what we do, in some sense), and if a property has had the benefit of a 50' frontage for a period of time, was platted and accepted by the municipality as such, and bought and sold as such, it pains our surveyor's hearts and minds to see those associated entitlements taken away (or added to).
Planning departments are kind of in that business, they essentially take away or add to rights of a certain property all the time (for the public good, and at the public's direction). This isn't necessarily bad, but the perspectives are different.
And, I agree, obscuring the facts and the reality (however done) is not really conducive to the best practices and ethics of our profession.
For the OP, why not simply show what you have, choose the midpoint as measured, and prorate like we do all the time in blocks across the city?