Monuments vs Record

Hi Rich

I remember attending one of my first Westchester-Putnam meetings, probably early 1988. I was in your shoes, having recently received my NY License. Then WPAPLS President Jim Delano was on his soapbox, as was often the case, going on how we are to work to the standards of our area. NY is a huge state, with many different surveying styles. The LS from the Adirondacks may have a hard time in Westchester. I know I would have a hard time in Manhattan, the next county south. I‰Ûªm sure you are aware of this. You have some good advice from surveyors here on Beer Leg, but it may, or may not agree with local customs. You work in an area where the record map is almost sacred. Most of the errors have been found and resolved by now. But, as in all survey matters, that is not a rule; it depends.

I posted this story a while ago, but it may apply to your situation, or it may not. I started surveying in the NE corner of Bergen County, NJ, where, like Westchester, a ‰ÛÏmonument‰Û is a stone or concrete post, generally 4 or 5 inches square at the top, with a cross cut, drill hole or metal plug to mark the exact location. Monuments were generally set by the subdividing surveyor, or sometimes for a client with deep pockets who just wanted ‰ÛÏpermanent‰Û property markers. Pipes, pins, nails, cut crosses and drill holes were often seen as inferior to a monument. It was just regional practice.

It is the early 80s. I now have a NJ license. Doing a side job, I bring my younger brother along to help me with the fieldwork. We are taping down the rear line and I come across an old bluestone monument, the type set by the old surveyor who did the subdivision we are in. I get excited. My brother asks what it the big deal for finding that. I explain how they are reasonably permanent and are set to control where property lines are. He gets a sheepish look on his face. I ask what‰Ûªs up? Well, he worked for a fence company. They start at a corner and proceed down the line, digging holes for every pre-built fence panel. When they get to the corner, if it was a little tight to a found survey marker, and it is easy digging (much of NE Bergen County is coarse red sand, real easy digging) they just dig next to the monument, shove it over with the bar and put in a full fence panel. Much quicker and easier than cutting a panel down to fit.

Then there was a survey I did on a busy road down in New Rochelle. Subdivision plat shows offset monuments across the frontage. Find monuments in the sidewalk. They did not check too well. Somehow I wound up talking with the Con-Ed ‰ÛÏsurveyors‰Û (field guys, not licensed) probably when I went to get the utility plates, only to find out they had dug them out for an installation, but realizing they were important, they saved them so they could ‰ÛÏput them back.‰Û Sort of.

Monuments move. Sometimes.

Then there is the situation where the monuments control, but may not be on the corner. Look at Westchester County Clerk Map 4171. For those reading this that do not have access to the Westchester County Clerk‰Ûªs on-line maps. Back in 1935 the main survey firms of Westchester County (Ward Carpenter, Dearing, Farley, Sells, and Bodner) all agreed to hold the monuments (stone and concrete posts, see above) set as part of a large, curvilinear road system in accordance with the offsets from the monuments to the map corners, preserving the map geometry by referencing the sometimes poorly set monuments. Harmony among survey firms, all is good. Local practice.

You are in an area where old record surveys, even if private and not ‰ÛÏpublic‰Û information, hold a lot of importance. You have buildings and improvements that agree with the record shapes. Do you really throw all that out to hold a monument of unknown province? Maybe. maybe not.

Good luck.

Ken

In light of Ken's comments above, the Street View shows what appears to be a drain line running between the driveway curbing and the stone marker. Is that construction the possible cause of disturbance of the stone?

Ken Salzmann, post: 396361, member: 398 wrote: Hi Rich

I remember attending one of my first Westchester-Putnam meetings, probably early 1988. I was in your shoes, having recently received my NY License. Then WPAPLS President Jim Delano was on his soapbox, as was often the case, going on how we are to work to the standards of our area. NY is a huge state, with many different surveying styles. The LS from the Adirondacks may have a hard time in Westchester. I know I would have a hard time in Manhattan, the next county south. I‰Ûªm sure you are aware of this. You have some good advice from surveyors here on Beer Leg, but it may, or may not agree with local customs. You work in an area where the record map is almost sacred. Most of the errors have been found and resolved by now. But, as in all survey matters, that is not a rule; it depends.

I posted this story a while ago, but it may apply to your situation, or it may not. I started surveying in the NE corner of Bergen County, NJ, where, like Westchester, a ‰ÛÏmonument‰Û is a stone or concrete post, generally 4 or 5 inches square at the top, with a cross cut, drill hole or metal plug to mark the exact location. Monuments were generally set by the subdividing surveyor, or sometimes for a client with deep pockets who just wanted ‰ÛÏpermanent‰Û property markers. Pipes, pins, nails, cut crosses and drill holes were often seen as inferior to a monument. It was just regional practice.

It is the early 80s. I now have a NJ license. Doing a side job, I bring my younger brother along to help me with the fieldwork. We are taping down the rear line and I come across an old bluestone monument, the type set by the old surveyor who did the subdivision we are in. I get excited. My brother asks what it the big deal for finding that. I explain how they are reasonably permanent and are set to control where property lines are. He gets a sheepish look on his face. I ask what‰Ûªs up? Well, he worked for a fence company. They start at a corner and proceed down the line, digging holes for every pre-built fence panel. When they get to the corner, if it was a little tight to a found survey marker, and it is easy digging (much of NE Bergen County is coarse red sand, real easy digging) they just dig next to the monument, shove it over with the bar and put in a full fence panel. Much quicker and easier than cutting a panel down to fit.

Then there was a survey I did on a busy road down in New Rochelle. Subdivision plat shows offset monuments across the frontage. Find monuments in the sidewalk. They did not check too well. Somehow I wound up talking with the Con-Ed ‰ÛÏsurveyors‰Û (field guys, not licensed) probably when I went to get the utility plates, only to find out they had dug them out for an installation, but realizing they were important, they saved them so they could ‰ÛÏput them back.‰Û Sort of.

Monuments move. Sometimes.

Then there is the situation where the monuments control, but may not be on the corner. Look at Westchester County Clerk Map 4171. For those reading this that do not have access to the Westchester County Clerk‰Ûªs on-line maps. Back in 1935 the main survey firms of Westchester County (Ward Carpenter, Dearing, Farley, Sells, and Bodner) all agreed to hold the monuments (stone and concrete posts, see above) set as part of a large, curvilinear road system in accordance with the offsets from the monuments to the map corners, preserving the map geometry by referencing the sometimes poorly set monuments. Harmony among survey firms, all is good. Local practice.

You are in an area where old record surveys, even if private and not ‰ÛÏpublic‰Û information, hold a lot of importance. You have buildings and improvements that agree with the record shapes. Do you really throw all that out to hold a monument of unknown province? Maybe. maybe not.

Good luck.

Ken

Thanks Ken.

Great advice. Actually just the insight I was looking for.

As stated in my original post, the deeds all seem to stem from lots that were individually measured. Since they all agree to such a small degree it seems highly unlikely this monument is 'correct' as it was quite clearly not in existence when the measurements of the existing lots were taken. And also like you said it seems the record, old surveys, and buildings all relied on the record shapes which work great (in terms of equity) it seems more reasonable that they should be held.

Kent McMillan, post: 396362, member: 3 wrote: In light of Ken's comments above, the Street View shows what appears to be a drain line running between the driveway curbing and the stone marker. Is that construction the possible cause of disturbance of the stone?

Very possible. Wow. You are observant.

Just out of curiosity, I took a quick google. I take it that the block you're working in is shown on Map 610 and is bounded by streets that were laid out in the 1870s as shown on Map 610? Are the lots that you're dealing with best described as the result of a resubdivision of some lots or block shown on Map 610?

Stephen Ward, post: 396338, member: 1206 wrote: I was on the azimuth mark. The point I'd thought I was on was about 25 feet further south

To be pedantic, I'm pretty sure you were on a reference mark, not the azimuth mark, at a distance of 25 ft. A C&GS/NGS azimuth mark was rarely less than a quarter mile from the triangulation station, whereas the RMs were usually within one tape lengh. The RMs were there to help find the triangulation station, which was often buried.

Bill93, post: 396807, member: 87 wrote: To be pedantic, I'm pretty sure you were on a reference mark, not the azimuth mark, at a distance of 25 ft. A C&GS/NGS azimuth mark was rarely less than a quarter mile from the triangulation station, whereas the RMs were usually within one tape lengh. The RMs were there to help find the triangulation station, which was often buried.

I'd have to go back and pull the data sheets to be sure. That's what I get for telling stories from memory. 🙂

could mark the road right of way but not a lot corner.... I like D Karoly's comment and Kent Mc has retraced a lot of old town tracts and while his comments may not be apt for the laws of your state, his comments on evaluation of evidence are extremely useful.

Paul in PA, post: 396319, member: 236 wrote: YES, buildings are pretty much immovable monuments. Have you considered that the star monument may have been intentionally set inside the Lot B line? I would then note it as off or as within Lot B.

It is definitely a Monument to the Corner, but that does not make the middle of it the corner.

Surveyors have to consider the preponderance of the evidence. I believe you have indicated enough evidence that it is not an original corner.

Paul in PA

careful.....you're advocating the dreaded virtual pin cushion from the other thread. (I think you're right)

I just "re-read" Cooley and have even more confidence in holding monuments until proven to be a) not original, b) moved, such an obvious blunder that they MUST be rejected.

Did a lot survey last year. Found 2 out of 8 corners. Did a fast static on those. They bulldozed most of the improvements including large trees while I was waiting for OPUS to upload their data (24 hrs). One of the static points did not 'compute' in OPUS. Went back out to reshoot the point. Guess what, yep they nixed that point when they bulldozed.
I did find another point that wasn't available until they cleared the back of the property but it was .6' out from other control much further out from the property. Knowing they were shoving dirt around and uprooting trees I just had to call that one off. It didn't hang with the other control.
The one remaining point I hit flat with the external points. I will always hit those points twice or three times from now on.

[USER=10450]@Rich.[/USER]

After reading all of the advice, a cornucopia of great comments, I hope your estimate for Surveying Services associated with this project are in excess of 50K. 😎

FL/GA PLS., post: 397124, member: 379 wrote: [USER=10450]@Rich.[/USER]

After reading all of the advice, a cornucopia of great comments, I hope your estimate for Surveying Services associated with this project are in excess of 50K. 😎

I might charge that much to just do my 'research' (read the comments)

Mapman, post: 397123, member: 6096 wrote: Did a lot survey last year. Found 2 out of 8 corners. Did a fast static on those. They bulldozed most of the improvements including large trees while I was waiting for OPUS to upload their data (24 hrs). One of the static points did not 'compute' in OPUS. Went back out to reshoot the point. Guess what, yep they nixed that point when they bulldozed.
I did find another point that wasn't available until they cleared the back of the property but it was .6' out from other control much further out from the property. Knowing they were shoving dirt around and uprooting trees I just had to call that one off. It didn't hang with the other control.
The one remaining point I hit flat with the external points. I will always hit those points twice or three times from now on.

This pretty much is what I felt happened. The two monuments 0.5' north were not anywhere near the same make as the others. Also a stone wall and concrete wall were constructed at one point against the monuments which easily could have disturbed them.

I also had found a cross cut on the old sidewalk at the record distance adjacent to one of the monuments that was off 5 tenths. I left that info out of the original post bc I was more feeling for how people handle the monument dilemma.

The 8 tenths monument is more of a mystery. I did find an old deed that helped a bit but nothing that would really be able to overturn the years and years of reliance (with improvements) on the record distances.

I've got a case where the monuments according to the subdivision plat should be located on the Government Lot Line. Monuments found are 5/8 inch smooth pins (Plat says they are 3/4 inch pins) and they are located 200 feet too far North and 85 feet too far West, which puts them over the Government Lot Line onto another property owners land. Their Land Surveyor searched three days and could only find 8 monuments which varied from 5/8 inch smooth pins, to spikes in a concrete filled coffee can to 1/2 inch rebar. Their Surveyor is telling my adversaries that the monuments rule over the Plat. I say B.S., not when they are that far off and not of the material described on the Plat. There are 26 lots in this subdivision. That means there should be over 50+ monuments and their Surveyor can only find 8! .Their Surveyor performed an analysis of his findings and determined the pins were 20 degrees off in bearing and horizontal distances were short 10 to 20 percent from Plat bearings and distances. The Developer revealed he owns a Nikon Total Station. He introduced himself as an Engineer. Truth is he's a backhoe Operator (Operating Engineer). The monuments their Surveyor found are located on open easy ground around existing cabins.
The Original GLO corners the Plat was tied to are intact and undeniably original. My Opinion is when monuments are in suspect, you need to go back to the original monuments that were used to establish the subdivision and relocate the Plat based monument locations. They Lawyers say "Hell No, cabin owners will lose their property". I say too bad maybe they can work out some Boundary Line Agreements.
The whole subdivision reeks of Fraud by the Developer. He has tossed his Statute of Limitations card to avoid being sued. I don't think Fraud has a Statute of Limitations, but evidently the Lawyers feel it does, because they won't go after the Developer. Mean while all the Lot owners are twiddling their thumbs over who's going to pay to fix this mess. Anyway it puts a whole new meaning to Monuments ruling over the Plat. It makes me laugh over worrying about .6 error.