Say I start on some centerline monuments, turn and shoot what appears to be an undisturbed and original rebar and cap at the front of the lot. It is about .1' off my calculated property side line, and about 0.2' into the calculated ROW as determined by offsetting the centerline monuments. Let's assume that this is within expected tolerance for the area and time of platting.
1. Does the found rebar and cap determine the sideline of the subject lot?
2. Does the found rebar and cap determine the edge of ROW? (ROW has an angle point.)
3. How do you show this on your survey?
4. Do you think that deviation from your method is incorrect, or merely a difference of opinion?
5. Is it evil to disagree with you? Does the person lack character and survey skill if they disagree?
My answers:
1. Yes.
2. Perhaps.
3. Depends.
4. Many ways to do this work, I am not convinced I know the only way.
5. No and No. Hopefully, they know better than me AND are good teachers so that I can get better.
?ÿ
- This is from a junior in college. Original, called for, undisturbed, so it holds for the lot and the R/W unless there is something grossly off.
- We would show record vs measured off the centerline.?ÿ
- This is from a junior in college. Original, called for, undisturbed, so it holds for the lot and the R/W unless there is something grossly off.
- We would show record vs measured off the centerline.?ÿ
I appreciate your certainty.
?ÿ
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1172&context=sulr
This article discusses Olson v City of Seattle, among other cases. I would need more information to make a decision, but wouldn't argue with yours.
1. Yes unless trumped by higher priority of call.
?ÿ2.?ÿIf centerline monuments are correct, the R/W monuments will yield to the legal width. ?ÿJurisdictions get their legal R/W, no more, no less. ?ÿIn the absence of C/L monuments things get more difficult. ?ÿR/W monuments on both sides need to be analyzed and a centerline established from which the R/W lines will be offset.
3. The side yard will match the monument found and both measured and plat/deed distance will be annotated. ?ÿThe R/W monument will be dimensioned the the R/W line if it varies too much, but I would not dimension 0.1?? or even 0.2??, I believe that is within a reasonable tolerance.
4. ?ÿThere is a priority of calls to guide you with the standard of care exercised by our profession. ?ÿIn my opinion, following this approach should drastically reduce or eliminate differing opinions.
5. ?ÿYou are free to disagree. Depending ?ÿon how it is approached will dictate a person??s character or lack there of.
?ÿ
No Land Survey procedure is evil.
It??s a civil matter, morality is not a factor.
1. Yes unless trumped by higher priority of call.
?ÿ2.?ÿIf centerline monuments are correct, the R/W monuments will yield to the legal width. ?ÿJurisdictions get their legal R/W, no more, no less. ?ÿIn the absence of C/L monuments things get more difficult. ?ÿR/W monuments on both sides need to be analyzed and a centerline established from which the R/W lines will be offset.
3. The side yard will match the monument found and both measured and plat/deed distance will be annotated. ?ÿThe R/W monument will be dimensioned the the R/W line if it varies too much, but I would not dimension 0.1?? or even 0.2??, I believe that is within a reasonable tolerance.
4. ?ÿThere is a priority of calls to guide you with the standard of care exercised by our profession. ?ÿIn my opinion, following this approach should drastically reduce or eliminate differing opinions.
5. ?ÿYou are free to disagree. Depending ?ÿon how it is approached will dictate a person??s character or lack there of.
?ÿ
Your number 2 is repeated ad nauseum, but is rarely repeated by the courts. "The king gets his due" when proportioning an unmonumented subdivision and there is nothing else to go on,?ÿ but no one has yet found a court of precedence that has ignored an original ROW monument in favor of a paper width.?ÿ
Your number 4 indicates a much simpler world than I have experienced. Priority of calls are important facts to know, but often they are just one factor to consider. Applying them with zeal often gets surveyors into trouble.?ÿ
Anyone disagreeing with me is obviously of the political persuasion you find most offensive and is therefore a crazed evil surveyor. ?????ÿ
Based on the facts given:
1. Yes it controls the sideline. More importantly why wouldn't it? Why would the monuments set to mark the centerline of the road and measurements therefrom control over the undisturbed monument set to mark the sideline of the lot? What we have here is conflicting elements of boundary resolution, and the law gives us a list of which ones to hold first. Every type of monument (called for, uncalled for, natural, manmade) all control over measurement. If we were considering a newer monument, then we must consider if it occupies the original position (and I'm unlikely to say it doesn't without greater evidence than a difference in measurement from centerline monuments), but with the facts given that's not a consideration here.?ÿ
2. Same story, yes it controls the right of way. Yes the king gets his width when proportioning, but we aren't proportioning here. The monument set to mark the edge of the right of way shouldn't be given less weight than the monument set to mark its center.?ÿ
3. Bearing Distance (R) Bearing Distance (M)
4. Could be incorrect, could be a difference of opinion. More info is needed here. Is the argument against me founded in a well reasoned opinion based on the facts and the law? Does the other person have info I lacked? Do they know about a court case I don't know about, or some little bit of info about the original surveyor's methodology that I lack? I'm all ears. If the reason is "that's the way I always do it" or "that's the easy (lazy) way to do things" then I'm likely to say it's wrong.
5. Not likely evil. Maybe stuck in their way of thinking and unwilling to consider that they've been wrong in the past. The sign of a good surveyor to me is the guy who's willing to say "Wanna see the time I screwed that up? It's right here on record survey number xxxx (amended by record survey yyyy)."?ÿ
?ÿ
This is a great topic to getting respondents to start punching each other in the nose.
The King rulez.......The King gets something but it's probably not what the paper subdivision drawn on a diner napkin says he gets.
The monument found matches the description in some prior survey in 1972..........An iron pin is an iron pin is an iron pin.?ÿ Who, other than a certain Texan, can prove the pin in the pin set in 1972 and that it has not been relocated in the past 50 years by some landowner who didn't like where it was put.
The paper napkin says 40 feet in 1922.........A prior survey shows 40.03' at that point...........I measured 39.97'........I am always correct and everyone else is foolish to not accept that indisputable certainty.
?ÿ
Tis but a scratch............tis but a flesh would.............come back here you coward, I'll bite your legs off
Skip to about 2:15 to the start of the good stuff.
?ÿ
What kind of watch are you guys building? A tenth of a foot! Highway Surveyor's are among the worst if not the worst Surveyor's around. What kind of R/W monument are you measuring to? Around here they're 4"X4" concrete monument set by a contractor. Where do you measure to? The center or the back edge? The highway department surveyor says neither. There's an iron pin set as a reference to where the concrete monument should be set, but it's not of record and that's not what the R/W Plat shows as the R/W monument. If you only find a tenth discrepancy. It's party time!
1. Yes
2. yes only if it was an original monument when the r/w was established or widened. A monument on centerline of a road isn??t always magic holding over anything else?ÿ
If you only find a tenth discrepancy. It's party time!
I'll admit, I sometimes party when it's a few tenths
?ÿ
Jurisdictions get their legal R/W, no more, no less.
I disagree if it is a roadway dedicated via subdivision plat.
If you only find a tenth discrepancy. It's party time!
I'll admit, I sometimes party when it's a few tenths
?ÿ
I have partied when I have found an original monument 100 feet "off".
?ÿ
?ÿ
Is this a street inside a subdivision that has centerline crosses set at PC's, PT's, prolongation of lot lines to the CL of the R/W, etc??ÿ This sounds like a familiar scenario here in suburbia.?ÿ Usually the utility installers or sod installers hit the front corners.
A monument is not "off" unless I'm not holding it. Once I decide to accept a monument, the lines I show can only run to that monument, not to some theoretical point nearby.
Positional tolerance is of course taken into account - if an accepted monument is within positional tolerance, it marks the corner and by definition is not "off", and therefore will not be shown as off.
When considering a monument ostensibly marking both a lot line and a right-of-way, there are a variety of factors that determine what (if anything) it is being held for. The ROW might have been dedicated at the same time as the subdivision, or it could have been punched through later, or there might have been an additional taking after the initial dedication. The lot line could have been adjusted by a BLA rendering it useless for lot determination but still applicable for ROW. It all depends.
If it's being held for the lot line but not the right-of-way, it's going to be noted as something like "Found XXXX, held for lot line only, not a ROW monument" with either a station and offset from road alignment (if available) or a tie to nearest controlling monuments, or if the ROW is being dimensioned, I would add the bearing and distance from the angle point I held. Whatever is easiest for the next surveyor to compute and check.
When I see a notation for a calculated corner and a monument at some B&D away from it, without any other information on the ROS about the surveyor's thought process, I can only conclude that they are two different things, not the same thing - because they are noted as such.
From this site I've become more aware about ownership in other states. If you're in a state where the lot owner's property extends to the centerline of the street and the street is an easement I suppose you might call the lot corners witness corners and the centerline monuments hold over them. If you're in my state where a dedicated street is fee simple determinable then the lot corners hold until such time as the street is vacated and the lot owners then reclaim the surface ownership to the centerline. Centerline monuments are not set here.?ÿ
Positional tolerance is of course taken into account - if an accepted monument is within positional tolerance, it marks the corner and by definition is not "off", and therefore will not be shown as off.
I agree with this statement, and if it was followed there would be fewer notes about fallings and fewer measured vs record or deed calls.?ÿ
I'm with Skeeter. We have to live in a world where measurements are not exact. It seems to me that in the circumstances presented a best fitting solution could be found where the record math all falls on the caps. (In Oregon the statute says the monuments are to be placed with 0.10', or 1:10000 of the distance which I take to mean that a monument found within a tenth of the record dimension is as good as dead on) If so, I can't see any purpose is served by standing on formalities and twisting the record to conform to "better" measurements, only to be twisted again by the next set of better measurements. So you hold the monuments and the record dimensions and manage the differences between that and your measurements as necessary.
If you happen to find a few that are little further off then maybe you call those disturbed. And if you happen to find something that is bona fide at odds with the record, then you've got something worth modifying the record for.?ÿ?ÿ