Hypothetically you are performing a boundary survey in the NE1/4 of a section on a 90 acre tract which will be subdivided and platted by you. A portion of the project you are surveying abuts an existing plat by others recorded 11 years prior, on the west, north, and east sides. The southerly line is the South line of the NE1/4. All 8 Section corners and the center of Section are in and accepted as correct.
The monuments for the common boundary of the 2 plats were all found undisturbed and the monuments common to both on the South of the NE 1/4 line fit acceptably. The other 12 monuments belonging to the existing plat were found but did not agree with your calculations. All were ??off? in every direction up to 0.87??.
What would you do with these monuments, if anything, and how would you describe them on your Survey??ÿ
Is there a large elevation change across the area?
I'm an LSIT so I'll give my 2 cents.
Where the 2 properties ever under common ownership, and did the 12 monuments subdivide the 2 properties.?ÿ If yes, if they match the original descriptions, and show no signs of disturbance, then I hold them as original monuments.
?ÿ
If the properties were not under common ownership, does the record information for the 90 ac. agree with the record information for the platted property??ÿ Is there or has there ever been reliance on the 12 monuments?
I'm an LSIT so I'll give my 2 cents.
??Where the 2 properties ever under common ownership, and did the 12 monuments subdivide the 2 properties.?ÿ they match the original descriptions, and show no signs of disturbance??
yes, yes, and they match original description not disturbed.
??does the record information for the 90 ac. agree with the record information for the platted property??ÿ Is there or has there ever been reliance on the 12 monuments??
Yes, and yes interior street control for a 372 unit P.U.D. The descriptions between the existing and forthcoming plats match. ?????ÿ
You old farts out there join in with your opinions, it??s sure to be a learning experience.?ÿ
@flga-2
OK. I'm a registered land surveyor; so, I'm not supposed to answer? But, I am an old fart so...
Original monuments are without error, so they can't be "off". The can differ from your math, but, they are still controlling in the location you found them (assuming they are un-disturbed).
Easy right? The only minor detail is determining if they are "original, un-disturbed monuments". You are a retracement surveyor for the 90 acre tract and any other previous surveys which determine your boundary. You don't have to like the previous surveyor's footsteps; but, you are required to follow them (remember that you have no authority to correct previous a surveyor's work).
I've only been licensed about a month and a half and haven't recorded anything so I'll pretend to be an LSIT for the sake of this.?ÿ ???? I wouldn't concern myself with monuments that didn't directly affect my project.?ÿ I got hired to do a plat, not troubleshoot the entire quarter section.
I ran into an "almost" similar situation a few years ago.?ÿ?ÿ
A large tract subdivision had been created in the SW/4 of a section in about 1980.?ÿ I was preparing a plat in the NW/4 that abutted the common line between the two quarters.?ÿ The 1980 addition had been poorly monumented and several of the pins "gored" the NW/4 over a foot or two.?ÿ The locations, in my opinion were due to nothing more than poor field procedure and existing conditions.
Had I acquiesced to the "original" locations of the monuments in the SW/4 it would have created a situation where the proposed lots in the NW/4 wouldn't meet the code requirement for being "over 5 acres".?ÿ This basically meant the developer would probably "lose" at least one lot by reconfiguring the plat.
I restored the common quarter line and determined it's integrity as it was in 1980.?ÿ My "argument" was that at the time the surveyor placed pins north of the existing quarter line.?ÿ This was a senior line and should have been accepted.?ÿ In that light I disregarded any pins set in 1980 that were set north of the quarter line.?ÿ "Closing" corners were set on my survey and their locations in reference to the 1980 pins were noted on my survey.?ÿ
My plat was accepted and filed.?ÿ Never heard another thing about it.
That's my business approach to this situation but it doesn't feel like I'm really humoring the spirit of the question, so maybe I should elaborate.
Assuming I needed to get to the bottom of the discrepancies with the other 12 monuments then I would decide if they are original and undisturbed.?ÿ If they are then they are correct and my measurements are wrong, and my effort would stop there.?ÿ If they appear to be disturbed then I would do additional research on the adjoiners to those subdivisions to hopefully get an idea of when or how things went wrong.?ÿ Needless to say this is where things spiral out of control.
The bottom line is I wouldn't be showing these 12 monuments on my plat even if they were undisturbed originals.?ÿ I would show the common boundary with my adjoiners and the section line tie and call it a day.?ÿ ?????ÿ
The bottom line is I wouldn't be showing these 12 monuments on my plat
How would you set monuments for the common 12 corner line?
@flga-2?ÿ I would set them according to the pins that were found and accepted on that common boundary.
@flga-2
?ÿ
Interior street control may or may not control the outer boundary. If there are original corner monuments at the plat boundary with your current plat, then they control, but from your description, there was no consistency to the "miss" to the monuments, as such they can provide NO EVIDENCE of where the surveyor placed the original corner. They memorialize the centerline of the road (I suppose they do, I do not know how many front monument corners exist), but they do not provide guidance on the overall boundary.
(I reserve the right to change my mind with more information.)
@flga-2
?ÿ
"The other 12 monuments belonging to the existing plat were found but did not agree with your calculations. All were ??off? in every direction up to 0.87??."
?ÿ
You didnt stipulate that these were the 12 corners common to your current boundary. IF they are, then the story might change...and IF they are how exactly do we know they haven't been moved?
You didnt stipulate that these were the 12 corners common to your current boundary
They are
IF they are how exactly do we know they haven't been moved?
You tell me. ?????ÿ
You didnt stipulate that these were the 12 corners common to your current boundary
They are
Oh, I read the situation completely differently then.?ÿ It sounded like the pins that were off were all on the opposite side of the adjoining plat as the subject property.?ÿ I think I need a sketch to see what you're talking about here.?ÿ ?????ÿ