Is the "site triangle" dedicated as R/W? I know this to be the case in several other places I have worked in but definitely don't want to assume. Especially with the wealth of knowledge on this board to consult.
My eyes aren't what they used to be but it doesn't matter. I could never read anything that small.
My apologies I did not realize it would post that small. Perhaps this will be easier on the eyes.
That definitely helped. The problem is that does not necessarily tell you what you need to know. Rather than an easement it is probably a building setback line. Is there anything in the text portion of the plat commenting on the so-called site triangle?
Two alternatives come to mind. Ask the City of Springfield for their subdivision regulations section addressing this issue. Ask the signing surveyor of that plat.
> That definitely helped. The problem is that does not necessarily tell you what you need to know. Rather than an easement it is probably a building setback line. Is there anything in the text portion of the plat commenting on the so-called site triangle?
There is no mention whatsoever of the site triangle in any of the notes. This is the first time I have seen it displayed in this way. My initial instinct was to treat it as a setback being as it doesn't appear to change the boundary of the affected lot. The only concern I have is that the legal I was given is LESS all the portions dedicated to R/W and that is normally the case for the triangle in Oklahoma at least all the ones I've seen.
Local custom is the key, but if I was to guess I'd bet on a site distance easement. In other words, nothing in there an obstruct site distance for vehicles at the intersection. I have seen VDOT impose those kinds of things.
I would agree that is is a sight distance easement. "Site Triangle" as stated on the plat is a term used in sight distance equations. I would just call Anderson. They have a very good name for themselves and are active in all the State programs. I am sure they will offer up some info. Or the signing official at the municipality may be able to verify.
Ryan
Agree that the word should be "SIGHT" and not "SITE". Looks like the area that you cannot build anything in to obstruct the view of approaching traffic.
I know this sounds
kinda trivial and certainly nothing on which to base a firm opinion, but the linetypes for the triangle and the building setbacks appear to be the same. Also the additional right of way is shown as a solid line to which the triangle extends.
Andy
I didn't even pay attention to the spelling, but you are correct.
Seems to me that a sight triangle would be considered a restrictive easement, rather than a part of the ROW.
