Recently, we completed the field work for 2 acre lot along the northern line of an unrecorded subdivision in the northwestern, rural part of the county. The typical deeds for the area are the usual sectional breakdown, 1/4 of a 1/4 etc, however in our unrecorded subdivision the calls are for whole parts.?ÿ
Holding the current positions of the section line that the subdivision is on, the north - south distances are closer to 325.20, and being on the northern line of this subdivision, those .20 could add up or subtract working north.
I found points in the area of where current calculations, holding published information from the county take me. One of the points is an older concrete monument with a distinguishable marking on top, a 2" x 2" metal square with pin in the middle, set in a 4" x 4" concrete monument. I would presume it to be original and hate for someone to call it off because it disagrees with published coords from the county. The monument found was plus or minus on the line, but about 0.80 S.?ÿ I found another point at an older fence intersection, that disagreed by about 1.25'E as well, perhaps holding occupation? Doesn't seem right considering it is part of a subdivision, though unrecorded.
In this instance, would the record distances supersede the published coordinate calcs following the called for breakdown? Or would those calls be true only if the governing section corners were at a perfect mile and should be taken as such, and adjusted accordingly??ÿ?ÿ
The deed or plat is the treasure map.?ÿ Original monuments are the treasure.
Proportion between found and trusted monuments.?ÿ Don't let those 0.2 add up to trouble.
Now let's see what the pros say.
Found monuments hold regardless of county assigned coordinates or subdivision plat.?ÿ If they are original and called for then those monuments are it period.
?ÿ
?ÿ
The office of the description is to help find the monument.?ÿ
Have you analyzed the distances for scaling? Not intentional scaling, rather, systematic error from not pulling the chain tight or from not applying temperature corrections. If you can find a consistent scaling between their reported measurements and the monuments they call, that's evidence that the monument is exactly where they said it would be.?ÿ
0.20' in 325' is within the realm of everyday chaining. Around here, a tenth in a hundred is not unheard-of. Possibly they came from the North and measured to the monument, and reported a slightly long distance because that's exactly what they measured with a calibrated chain made slightly short by procedure. Some things don't make sense until you follow in the footsteps. What footsteps can you find for the point that is 1.25'E ?
Coordinates from a county section breakdown are like fresh snow -- no footsteps to follow.
My opinion, though I am licensed in a colonial state, is that the fact that the subdivision plat is unrecorded, simply renders it to be a plat of survey, neither having more or less stature than any other plat of a survey that was not done as a subdivision plat.
As has been said above, if the plat leads you to the monuments whose positions the plat describes, the monument takes precedent over the precision of the plat.
?ÿ
I think the scrivener might have offered a clue in that the parcel(s) lay West of a <em><strong>Proximate</strong></em> 50' road width on, or about the East line of section 1. It may be prior surveys weren't able to place the unrecorded subdivision exactly on the East line of section 1, or reconcile the row with that line. Your 1.25' East of calcs might be wholly valid.
Not sure I understand the ending exception of <em>'..Less the West 315' thereof'</em>?ÿ Did they just vacate the entire description ???
<blockquote><p>"I think the scrivener might have offered a clue in that the parcel(s) lay West of a Proximate 50' road width on, or about the East line of section 1"</p></blockquote>
?ÿ
well damn, it was (verbatim) <em>..Lying West of that <strong>certain</strong> 50' road <strong>proximate</strong> to the East line of said section 1"</em>
?ÿ
Now I'm not so sure they weren't specifying the terminus for the road easement, or explaining the exterior boundary of the unrecorded subdivision.
It does seem to hint that there was some uncertainty as to the coincidence of the East line of section 1.
The office of the description is to help find the monument.?ÿ
Have you analyzed the distances for scaling? Not intentional scaling, rather, systematic error from not pulling the chain tight or from not applying temperature corrections. If you can find a consistent scaling between their reported measurements and the monuments they call, that's evidence that the monument is exactly where they said it would be.?ÿ
0.20' in 325' is within the realm of everyday chaining. Around here, a tenth in a hundred is not unheard-of. Possibly they came from the North and measured to the monument, and reported a slightly long distance because that's exactly what they measured with a calibrated chain made slightly short by procedure. Some things don't make sense until you follow in the footsteps. What footsteps can you find for the point that is 1.25'E ?
Coordinates from a county section breakdown are like fresh snow -- no footsteps to follow.
The 325' line, in the deed is a whole part, however holding the published coords for breakdown, the line for the lot is 325.20'. The north line of this parcel is on the north line of the unrecorded plat. Working from the south line of Section 1 to the north, holding the whole distance of 325' instead of 325.20' could explain why the monument is approximately 0.80S. I haven't had a chance yet to really look into the one that is 1.25'E, it is a newer iron rod and cap and I speculate it was set from 3rd or 4th generation control, but I have been wrong before. Not many footsteps to follow around here, surveys are not recorded or filed and that I feel is part of the reason for the other corner being 1.25E, everyone is always re-inventing the wheel.
?ÿ
The only use "Published coordinates" have is to help you find the true location. A monument that is only 0.2' different than the record call is right on the money in my book.
The only use "Published coordinates" have is to help you find the true location. A monument that is only 0.2' different than the record call is right on the money in my book.
Amen brother.?ÿ
Somehow, from only the title of this thread, I knew where it was headed.?ÿ
Is there anything that has caused?ÿmore boundary location controversies than surveyors (and others) relying mainly on?ÿ"deed distances", and "newer calcs"???
I'm in the 'hold found mons' camp most of the time. If I can demonstrate intentional departure from sound practice or disturbance from original position it gets rejected regardless of how 'close' it is.
As Maher says, correct is an identity not a distance...
The only use "Published coordinates" have is to help you find the true location. A monument that is only 0.2' different than the record call is right on the money in my book.
I guess I didn't really explain the 0.20 very well. Breaking down the section using the published coords, each line of each lot is 325.20, including the lots to the south. If you hold the deed distance, 325.0, when you reach the north line after traveling 1320'?ÿ you would be approximately 0.80 south, which is about where the monument was found.
You found monuments substantially in agreement.?ÿ Use the monuments and proportion in any missing ones.
You found monuments substantially in agreement.?ÿ Use the monuments and proportion in any missing ones.
?ÿ
That would be interesting to hear about in an unrecorded subdivision with very few deeds of record and unsubstantiated original monuments.
Somehow it seems rights of parties in possession would hold a higher degree of dignity. I have no clue here.
?ÿ
edit: supposedly, 'it depends'