Spitballing at the Office

Posted by: @mightymoe

↑

sliver triangle

Is this an official surveying term?

I have had several smaller versions of this where I went with "intent". I would be tempted to hold that mon (that's 8 feet off for distance) for line and terminate where it intersects the public (city) line.

First rule of board work for Geometry teachers: If the line misses a point, make that point bigger.

My reply to your post was not meant to silly; it was meant to start a conversation on a particular subject. We were discussing gaps and gores at work. I had to refresh my memory concerning gores.

According to Black's Law, 8th Edition

gore -

1. A small, narrow slip of land.

2. A small (often triangular) piece of land such as may be left
between surveys that do not close.

Definition 2 describes your sliver triangle. I remember years ago someone was paying taxes on gores in order to own them. I don't know how widespread that was or if it was in my state of Florida. Have you ever heard of that?

@field-dog Am I misunderstanding?  I thought I read Moe's post as discussing an overlap?

It's an overlap with the subdivision lots extending across the south ROW line of a highway easement. The easement was later attached to a subdivision which because of the dedication process made the ROW a dedicated ROW, a limited fee ownership to the public. Then the older subdivisions were vacated and the 1995 subdivision was created. Possibly the old subdivision also overlapped into the ROW, I'm going to have to track down all the title back to the patents for this one and try and puzzle out how this overlap was created. The lots are now public, as is the road, not sure how that impacts ownership, but the lots could be granted to a private owner at any time. 

@cv 

You are correct; I was misunderstanding.

Posted by: @mightymoe

↑

The lots are now public, as is the road, not sure how that impacts ownership, but the lots could be granted to a private owner at any time.

Who would grant the lots to a private owner? Why would that be done?

@field-dog 

The county could. Assume the facilities there need an upgrade and they move to a different location that property would be valuable because it has great access. 

When you say "Public" do you mean the ownership entities of the lots and the ROW are the same? If so now would be the time for those entities to decide the size of the ROW and the lots so there is no overlap.

Posted by: @lurker

↑

When you say "Public" do you mean the ownership entities of the lots and the ROW are the same? If so now would be the time for those entities to decide the size of the ROW and the lots so there is no overlap.

The state, the city and the county are all "owners" with this property and the street. The street is actually an urban section of a US Highway. Most of the Highway that runs through the state is owned by the state in fee, but not all of it. This section was always an easement section and as the highway morphed into the city limits some of it was transferred from state to city responsibility.  Still the state will spend the money for upgrades and upkeep for the road improvements. 

The lots are owned by the county. I called the person who was the county manager at the time the subdivision was created. He told me the project was a joint project with the city and county each to pay 1/2 the costs of construction. The city was fighting paying their share, they figured the county was to pay for all of it and they went back and forth about it for years. Of course, being the government, the state kicked in a part of the costs through some grants. 

Anyway, sounds like it was a big PITA for the new county manager who came on just as the plat was being filed, he didn't remember any problems with location of the boundary, just the fights over funding and responsibilities. 

This is a great example of being watchful of your surroundings as you survey. The NE corner is 4' south of the back of walk, the NW corner is 12 south of the back of walk. Wouldn't that make alarm bells go off in your head as you look down the street. It's visually in the wrong place and jumps out when you're standing over it. 

Posted by: @mightymoe

↑

the Legal Description that the plat is based on calls out the south ROW of the State highway.

I think those are probably the magic words.

So where did this NE corner come from? It appears to be erroneous based on all of the other monumentation you found for the South Line of the ROW. Was it established by the subdivision plat that overlaps the ROW? If so it seems like your idea of rejecting it will be reasonable. Or was this NE corner established many years before the offending subdivision and relied on for the subdivision? Who put it 4' behind the walk and why?

Posted by: @lurker

↑

So where did this NE corner come from? 

1995 subdivision plat

So the owner who subdivided in 1995 just made a defacto claim to this triangular piece of land that was in easement to the Hwy, without showing the easement on the lots it was affecting? So is an option available to amend the subdivision plat, keeping the lots the same, but showing the easement for the Hwy over the north side of the affected lots? I'm assuming the ownership of the land is not in question just whether or not there is a Hwy easement affecting the north portion of these lots. 

Or since the south line of the ROW was called out in the Subdivision plat, amend the plat to reflect the true location of the south line of the ROW.

@lurker 

I can only show what the record is. There won't be any changes or amendments done with my survey. What happens after that is up to the powers that be.

After looking at everything, I believe there was a mis-calculation that created the issue. I'm going to draw the easement as shown on a number of older plats, easements grants, ect. It will take a couple of notes to explain what happened. It's not the only messy problem with this one.