Rich., post: 349263, member: 10450 wrote: .....So that is basically what is bugging me. Hold the deeded line, or the monuments found.
If the deed calls to monuments, and you find the called-for monuments in their original position (as far as you know), then the monuments are the deeded line. The only time I would be in somewhat of a quandary is if I found uncalled-for monuments that disagrees with my math.
Okay, I know what you meant by the "deeded line" (the bearing and distance calls in the deed) but I am just offering another way to look @ it. Original monuments called for in the deed are golden.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 349254, member: 9981 wrote: MY survey 2015-083 is not near Hwy 213. So you must be looking at something else. But.....
Roads don't always follow section lines like they do in Oklahoma. They often follow the lay of the land. The legal descriptions, from the 1860's or so, typically read "thence brg distance to a 12" fir tree, thence brg distance to a 14" alder, ... and so on a few hundred feet per leg. And, of course, their true course should be properly legalized. But there isn't funding available to do them all. And when the county surveyor does get around to it the only thing he may have to go on is the physical roadbed. So, yes, sometimes the road is the best evidence of the legal right of way.
Sorry, I just clicked on the survey that came up with the link (sn 8552). Thanks, Jon
I think the fill on the driveway and flagstone patio etc is distracting and unnecessary.
Dimensions locating the house and garage only provide one distance. I'd have two in order to place the building corner.
The title block could be bigger as to catch more of my attention.
The acreage only to the hundredths place square footage to the nearest foot.
What kind of monuments did you find: more description necessary.
Other than that, I think it's ok.
Also, will you be setting the other corners?
mattharnett, post: 349378, member: 6458 wrote: I think the fill on the driveway and flagstone patio etc is distracting and unnecessary.
Dimensions locating the house and garage only provide one distance. I'd have two in order to place the building corner.
The title block could be bigger as to catch more of my attention.
The acreage only to the hundredths place square footage to the nearest foot.
What kind of monuments did you find: more description necessary.
Other than that, I think it's ok.Also, will you be setting the other corners?
Some of that is probably by the state and area you live in. I disagree a little with Matt (no offense of course, Matt). I think the driveway and patio are important improvements to show. Also, I suggest (agree with) the area to the nearest square foot, but the acreage to three places behind the decimal (which is to the nearest 40 square feet). Square footage to the tenth of a square foot, is extreme minutiae (kind of akin to having a distance to the 1/1000 of a foot.)
I have been considering showing both the record (deed) area as well as the "as-measured" area, but I haven't done it yet.
Dan Patterson, post: 349352, member: 1179 wrote: Do you have to set the missing corners? Here in NJ it is required.
Nope, not required here.
If you are not going to set the missing corners (not sure why you wouldn't but any who) you need to label those breaks in the lines as a pt and put some sort of symbol on them. With out that it makes it harder for the next guy to read the plat and know where the lines break. Also the N/F may work but I ALWAYS put the current owners full name with Deed Book and page, just the last name makes it harder on the future surveyor. Look at the attached link to see the requirements for NC and see if some of those might be useful to you.
Unfortunate
Norman Oklahoma, post: 349226, member: 9981 wrote: The topo part of your drawing looks nice.
I have the following comments:
1. Describe the monuments found in greater detail. Note the fact that they are called for in the deed.
2. Label the line between the found monuments whose bearings you held per deed as your "Basis of Bearings per Deed Book XX Page XX"
3. Show Lot areas to nearest square foot and hundreth of an acre.
4. I'd prefer to see the bearing and distance calls closer together and closer to the line they dimension.
5. Note bearings and distances that are held per deed calls as being so.
6. Either use the whole word "Flagstone" or make a legend that tells the user what "Flag." represents.
7. Use some crows feet to show what the 87.18' dimension is to.
8. There is a dimension 223.06' and another 223.07'. Is it labelling the same thing? Can't tell just what is being dimensioned there.
9. Some of the text is too small, especially when using lower case. It's going to become illegible at 8 1/2 x 11 and it doesn't have to be.
10. The abbreviation N/F isn't familiar to me and it won't be to your client. Spell it out or legend it.Check out survey No. SN2015-083 here for an example.
So here it is. 'Finished' plat.
So I had the answer come to me in my sleep the other night. Ya i know, it sounds weird, but it did. I realized that there was no reason to hold the rear monument, shorten the length of the line, and change the street bearing. I basically just held the front monument, shortened the line, and then put a calculated distance on the other sideline so all the street bearings/distances are all per the record. A much better solution IMO.
The only problem lies in the neighboring property to the right on the plat. His deed does not call for his adjoining line to go 'to the Mamaroneck-New Rochelle line' and then take a deflection, it only calls for a distance, so I did just that which makes his property go slightly longer along that line than hers. I would assume that his is supposed to angle at the same point, but nowhere in his deed does it make mention of that.
Thanks all. I can hopefully sleep a little better tonight about this one.
Hollandbriscoe, post: 349396, member: 9155 wrote: If you are not going to set the missing corners (not sure why you wouldn't but any who) you need to label those breaks in the lines as a pt and put some sort of symbol on them. With out that it makes it harder for the next guy to read the plat and know where the lines break. Also the N/F may work but I ALWAYS put the current owners full name with Deed Book and page, just the last name makes it harder on the future surveyor. Look at the attached link to see the requirements for NC and see if some of those might be useful to you.
I absolutely can do this. I didnt see this until after. I can put round dots on each angle.
We don't set new monumentation because it is not required by law. Might not be the most ideal but owners hiring us just do not want to pay for the additional work. :bored:
I'm not licensed in NY, but here are some comments I would have if this were in NJ:
-more building ties with two to at least one corner
-building dimensions
-are there lot/block or parcel numbers designation's for these properties? if so, include them
-right of way width for weaver street or if variable width say so. Is it a public right of way? say so
-POB (point of beginning per deed)
-fence tie to right of way line
-wall tie to right of way line
-is that a municipal boundary line along the back? if so I would make that text bigger
-N/F for the lot on the right side and the other one that shares the back corner
-Also, I use all caps and oblique text for existing and straight text for proposed. It helps distinguish the two. (I may get that from the engineering half of my brain)
Again, you may not have to include this stuff where you practice, but it's the way it's done where I work. I have to hand it to you for putting your plat up here to be scrutinized. I don't think I would...
The comments regarding centering your bearing/distances is important from a clarity aspect, especially for more complicated mapping. One would naturally expect the distance to be near the line it is annotating (usually centered). Below is how someone COULD interpret your labels.
Obviously in this example you can visually tell something is not right, but in other examples, it might not be so easy....
A better way to show those courses would be something like this....
Typically I'm used to surveys consisting of mostly measurements to evidence. It is assumed that when there is a course labeled that it has been measured unless otherwise noted.
N84å¡01'00"W 253.14' is a measured course.
N84å¡01'00"W 253.14' (R1) is a course from a record document ("R1" corresponds to a legend which gives great detail as to which record document it is referencing and where one would find that document). I use the term "record" because a single survey may rely on several sources of information such as un-recorded surveys, deeds, improvement plans, legal judgments, boundary line adjustments, corner records, ect. It's just easier to refer to these as "records".
N84å¡01'00"W 253.14' (Calc.) is self explanatory (except for how and to what).
I only use bearing distance leaders for courses that may be confusing without them. Example would be the first screen shot...I want people to know that the bearing is an overall bearing, not just associated with the left hand course. If I use leaders, there is ALWAYS leaders at BOTH ends of the course I am labeling.
If you don't show some sort of symbol at the corners or a note of some sort, I am left to believe that you just went out and found a couple easy corners and slammed in record info for the rest (it does happen). Example - use a small open circle at corners that you searched and were unable to find evidence. The legend will have a note to the effect...diligent search performed...nothing found or set.
If you are consistent, the user of the map will begin to understand that the course labels go from symbol to symbol and not between crossing lines. Example below....the label along the proposed property line goes between symbols...not having anything to do with the easement. Leaders could accomplish the same thing, but having symbols lets you save leaders for special situations. Also the labels are centered between the symbols, also giving the user additional info as to what course they pertain to.
The found stone 181.58' away is kind of just sitting out there....is this stone referenced in some sort of record document, or is it just a rock you found laying on the ground? Why is it significant enough to show on your survey? What's the bearing to the stone? It was leaning...did you tie the top or estimate the center base? What direction was it leaning?
The survey seems to be just an island sitting there all by it's self. There is no indication of how it fits with the surrounding parcels, which likely share it's boundaries. The adjacent parcel, which is selling land to your client...is that the Guinsberg Estate? What document or information makes you believe that they own the land within your proposed boundary line adjustment? What land are they left with? How will someone be able to use your survey to re-write their deed?
I realize this is an application for planning purposes, but you asked for opinions.
I feel it's really a shame I don't see more plats like this from other parts of the country here. I guess I understand why as it's not always fun opening one's self up for criticism but is an important way to seek out improvement. For me one of the best experiences (and most miserable) of my career was the five years I spent in a cubicle as a plat review technician where I was tasked with reviewing work from numerous surveyors across the State. It really helped me to develop an eye for critical detail and what works and what doesn't, what's important and not so much. To this day I remember the letter I got back from one surveyor regarding a review I'd done, politely telling me that when I get around to publishing 'The Manual on Style', he'd be happy to make some of the changes I'd redlined. Point well taken.
Dan Patterson, post: 349489, member: 1179 wrote: I'm not licensed in NY, but here are some comments I would have if this were in NJ:
-more building ties with two to at least one corner
-building dimensions
-are there lot/block or parcel numbers designation's for these properties? if so, include them
-right of way width for weaver street or if variable width say so. Is it a public right of way? say so
-POB (point of beginning per deed)
-fence tie to right of way line
-wall tie to right of way line
-is that a municipal boundary line along the back? if so I would make that text bigger
-N/F for the lot on the right side and the other one that shares the back corner
-Also, I use all caps and oblique text for existing and straight text for proposed. It helps distinguish the two. (I may get that from the engineering half of my brain)Again, you may not have to include this stuff where you practice, but it's the way it's done where I work. I have to hand it to you for putting your plat up here to be scrutinized. I don't think I would...
Thanks Dan. Very useful ideas for me to use.
A few of your comments actually were addressed since my last post.
-are there lot/block or parcel numbers designation's for these properties? if so, include them
---- This is a good idea. We usually dont for some reason bc we reference the filed map lot numbers, however in this case, there is no filed map. so SBL would be a great idea. (i should have thought of this to be honest)
-right of way width for weaver street or if variable width say so. Is it a public right of way? say so
---- it is. i will add.
-POB (point of beginning per deed)
--- The POB is the "Guinesberg Estate" I guess unless you have the deed that wouldnt be known so i should say its the POB.
-fence tie to right of way line
----this was added bc it shows the agreement with the only old survey i can find of the lot before improvements (besides this old fence)
-is that a municipal boundary line along the back? if so I would make that text bigger
-Also, I use all caps and oblique text for existing and straight text for proposed. It helps distinguish the two. (I may get that from the engineering half of my brain)
------ Both good suggestions.
Thanks!
imaudigger, post: 349512, member: 7286 wrote: The comments regarding centering your bearing/distances is important from a clarity aspect, especially for more complicated mapping. One would naturally expect the distance to be near the line it is annotating (usually centered). Below is how someone COULD interpret your labels.
Obviously in this example you can visually tell something is not right, but in other examples, it might not be so easy....
A better way to show those courses would be something like this....
Typically I'm used to surveys consisting of mostly measurements to evidence. It is assumed that when there is a course labeled that it has been measured unless otherwise noted.
N84å¡01'00"W 253.14' is a measured course.
N84å¡01'00"W 253.14' (R1) is a course from a record document ("R1" corresponds to a legend which gives great detail as to which record document it is referencing and where one would find that document). I use the term "record" because a single survey may rely on several sources of information such as un-recorded surveys, deeds, improvement plans, legal judgments, boundary line adjustments, corner records, ect. It's just easier to refer to these as "records".
N84å¡01'00"W 253.14' (Calc.) is self explanatory (except for how and to what).
I only use bearing distance leaders for courses that may be confusing without them. Example would be the first screen shot...I want people to know that the bearing is an overall bearing, not just associated with the left hand course. If I use leaders, there is ALWAYS leaders at BOTH ends of the course I am labeling.
If you don't show some sort of symbol at the corners or a note of some sort, I am left to believe that you just went out and found a couple easy corners and slammed in record info for the rest (it does happen). Example - use a small open circle at corners that you searched and were unable to find evidence. The legend will have a note to the effect...diligent search performed...nothing found or set.
If you are consistent, the user of the map will begin to understand that the course labels go from symbol to symbol and not between crossing lines. Example below....the label along the proposed property line goes between symbols...not having anything to do with the easement. Leaders could accomplish the same thing, but having symbols lets you save leaders for special situations. Also the labels are centered between the symbols, also giving the user additional info as to what course they pertain to.
The found stone 181.58' away is kind of just sitting out there....is this stone referenced in some sort of record document, or is it just a rock you found laying on the ground? Why is it significant enough to show on your survey? What's the bearing to the stone? It was leaning...did you tie the top or estimate the center base? What direction was it leaning?
The survey seems to be just an island sitting there all by it's self. There is no indication of how it fits with the surrounding parcels, which likely share it's boundaries. The adjacent parcel, which is selling land to your client...is that the Guinsberg Estate? What document or information makes you believe that they own the land within your proposed boundary line adjustment? What land are they left with? How will someone be able to use your survey to re-write their deed?
I realize this is an application for planning purposes, but you asked for opinions.
The centering is very interesting. I have seen surveys with centered B&D. My father and grandfather always labeled like this, and many of the surveyors in this area do. But the centering might be a little more clear as you said. Its something i can try to incorporate with my plats.
In this area most of the lots are platted and never were monumented. The way surveying is done is to find the nearest few control monuments in the subdivisions and then use the math to find the lot (unless you find already set pins etc at corners) Unfortunately this would be classified as "went out and found a couple easy corners and slammed in record info for the rest" On this particular survey, I measured whatever i could actually find (the 3 monuments) and then had to go by the record for everything else and just adjust in the direction the monuments were found to be differing in distance.
For the record vs measured, I put the note that the B&D agree with the deed in liber/page unless otherwise noted. Wouldn't this suffice?
And from now on I will absolutely be putting circles on the angle points as this is a simply awesome idea as i like this better than the leaders.
No worries on the opinions. much welcome. Just to think about how others view things and do things makes what i can do and put in my platting arsenal that much better. Like i said, usually our plats are from subdivisions, this one is just driving me insane because its out of a plat and there is some evidence found and the rest by record and its confusing trying to use the measured distance and tie it into the record of the other lines
Rich., post: 349524, member: 10450 wrote: .....-POB (point of beginning per deed)
--- The POB is the "Guinesberg Estate" I guess unless you have the deed that wouldnt be known so i should say its the POB....
Do you not have a copy of the deed? Is it not by metes and bounds? Could you expound on this? How could a POB be an "estate"?
Beginning at the northwest corner of land now or formerly of the Estate estate; thence ......
Perhaps?
Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I'm sure everybody has a local custom they are used to.
Interestingly odd way of identifying parcels of land (by street address). Around here the deeds are indexed by owner, which fits in nicely with the chain of title. Kind of bothered me that I could determine who owned the affected northerly parcel, but not who owned your client's land.
Around here, it's owner names and deed references for all adjacent parcels.
Paul D, post: 349540, member: 323 wrote: Beginning at the northwest corner of land now or formerly of the Estate estate; thence ......
Perhaps?
This exactly. I have not found the "Guinsberg" estate deed but I have all the deeds of the parcels to the north. They all fit together perfectly and snugly. We also surveyed the parcel to the north at the same time I did this one. That survey just got revised in light on the new evidence of this 3rd Monument i was able to find now. Both these surveys come from one parent tract that i also found the deed to which was deeded from the village of larchmont back in 1920 something or another.
imaudigger, post: 349552, member: 7286 wrote: Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I'm sure everybody has a local custom they are used to.
Interestingly odd way of identifying parcels of land (by street address). Around here the deeds are indexed by owner, which fits in nicely with the chain of title. Kind of bothered me that I could determine who owned the affected northerly parcel, but not who owned your client's land.
Around here, it's owner names and deed references for all adjacent parcels.
Yep street address or SBL. In the county the deeds are filed by liber and page but can be searched on the counties online website via owners names as well.
Rich., post: 349554, member: 10450 wrote: This exactly. I have not found the "Guinsberg" estate deed but I have all the deeds of the parcels to the north. They all fit together perfectly and snugly. We also surveyed the parcel to the north at the same time I did this one. That survey just got revised in light on the new evidence of this 3rd Monument i was able to find now. Both these surveys come from one parent tract that i also found the deed to which was deeded from the village of larchmont back in 1920 something or another.
I've been loosely following.
Without knowing the full extent of your project, of course, I would suggest it would be a good idea to pull the Guinsberg Estate deed for two reasons.
1) Since you are calling it out as your POB. I would want to have a good idea of what I am tying from. In other words, what is controlling your distances of 87.18' and 150.52', respectively? I always try to keep future, retracing surveyors in mind.
2) Since these tracts sound like they have a common parent, you may want to confirm there are no junior/senior issues going on. I am still unclear of who has current title to the .300 acre tract. I probably overlooked it, but I was unable to locate 797 Weaver Street on your plat. If it's not there, it would be a good idea to make a note of it, at the least since you mention it in your notes.
My .02
