Solutions Anyone?

Go to field, shoot everything. Come back, and find out how much fits the original plat. Now you have a tool, to analyze how much worth to give to the plat.
Usually distances are less nebulous to the land owners, than bearings. Probably typos, due to revisions, due to changes in plans.....

N

Question 1 ?

Have you prepared a map showing that the Lot 1 sideline bearings are transpositions, i.e. N 57° W vs N 75° W?

After you find a geometric solution to the filed map thrn you look for evidence ay 2 locations. Does that ball in the Lot 1 front line indicate you find something or just held the obviously incorrect bearing?

Paul in PA

From doing some calc's, the pin you found in the front line of Lot 1 was set from the P.T. of the curve, i.e., at the 73.85' for the frontage distance of Lot 1. The 7.18' from the P.T. to the front corner of Lots 1 & 2 is almost the same as the error in the distance between the P.T. of one curve to the P.C. of the other - 160.12' from adding the Lot frontages vs 152.97' plat record. Too much bogus data, in either the original calc's or the original staking. 20' difference in the rear line of Lot 2 according to what you recovered. Very questionable data every place.

The narrative on his plan points to an issue. He stated he changed the fronages to be proportionate, but he assumed the frontage of 13 was 79.09. This would be a contradiction to his reference that no curve information was given along the frontage of lot 13. Further, lot 2 of the original plat was a similar case, where the frontage is comprised of a curve and a tangent. In the case of lot 2, the original surveyor correctly annotated both curve and line. Further he did not give an overall frontage of lot 2, so I would not expect an overall at 13.

The original plan does not look like it would scale. Lot 1's frontage looks greater than it's rear line. Does the perimeter work?

Further, a proration should include the 7.18 - from accepted monument to accepted monument. Certainly not a good practice to hold the record where it helps your client, then give your client more frontage than originally calculated.

Any idea who set the pin at 13.92 from the SW corner of lot 1? Funny how that almost perfectly matches the record frontage from the wrong monument.

Thoughts of a non-LS:

I concur with Paul that 75 must have been transposed from 57 on the original plat.

The 19 ft discrepancy on the back of lot 2 is bothersome, but probably doesn't affect the interpretation of the frontage because he found pins in back of lots 1 and 13 that fit reasonably.

I would not have held the alignment of point A from across the road before proportioning on the west side.

INTERPRETATION 1

Although it seems strange that lot 13 would have an overall frontage given, while lot 2 has both parts given, I would take the 79.09 to be overall for lot 13 because it fits better.
[inlinecode] 7.18 part of lot 2
73.85 lot 1
79.09 all of lot 13
-----
160.12 total
-152.97 given distance
----
7.15 left for the curve in Lot 13 treated as straight.[/inlinecode]

79.09 -7.15 = 71.94 for straight part of Lot 13

Proportion his 152.91+11.85 = 164.76 measured between reliable monuments, i.e. all of lot 13, lot 1, and the 7.18 of lot 2, to the plat total 160.12.

Then
[inlinecode] 7.18 -> 7.39
73.85 -> 75.99
79.09 -> 81.38
---- -----
160.12 164.76[/inlinecode]

The difference between straight line and chord for that little piece of lot 13 is insignificant, and could be tweaked to the last 0.01 if someone wants to.

I would ignore the alignment across the road (his 90 degree turn) until after proportioning. After the lot corners were set, I would then set the end of the curve in lot 13, his 11.85 or whatever.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
INTERPRETATION 2

Curve portion of Lot 13 = 7.15 by subtraction from 152.97, or slightly different if you find the difference of chord and arc..

If you assume the bearings are 57+ degrees and not 75+, and don't constrain the frontages of lots 1 and 13, but compute them from those lots other distances and bearings, the values come out closer to being swapped than to the values given:
[inlinecode]Lot 13 = 71.0 (corner to corner, not along curve)
Lot 1 = 80.5
-------
Total 151.5[/inlinecode]
The total is not so far from 152.97 or his measured 152.01.

Most of the distances will scale out on a print of the original plat to something close to the given number. But if you scale the frontage of lots 1 and 13, you see that they almost appear to be swapped - they are closer to the unconstrained values computed above than the plat numbers.

I know that bearings fall below distances in priority, and plat scaling isn't on the list of priority in calls, but given the apparent lack of care on the original plot, this still might suggest the swapping blunder.

If we believe this interpretation, the resurvey results aren't too bad, even though the method is different.

I ran some calc's on the portion of the original plat and everything is so bogus, that it is a wonder that it could be staked on the ground. Nothing checks. Using the plat data, the Lot line between Lots 12 & 13 falls North of the P.C. and not South of it as depicted. It appears that all the bearings and distances are faulty. The house appears to have been laid out parallel with a line from the recovered monument pin in the front line of Lot 1, 73 some odd feet (73.85' Record) Southerly from the P.C. of the curve and the monument recovered at the angle point rear corner of Lots 1 & 13. Big Mess.

I notice that if you hold to the original map bearing on the road, and use the frontages shown (extracting 17.15 for the arc on lot 13), then run clockwise with the south line of lot 13, you come to the rear line which shows a bearing of S25-54-46 W. If in fact this bearing is taken to be N23-54-46E, then the distances to the R/W work very well with the original map dimensions for both lots 13 and 1.

Dean wants me to insert smiley face here 😛