I took on a project to survey Lot 42 in a subdivision from 1971 by a surveying and engineering company that is now defunct. Thinking all the calculations had been made, and finding several markers this was supposed to be routine.
I can live with many of the positions for the corner markers found in this survey. All that were found are shown numerically on the diagram except for numbers 57 and 77. This helps because the lot lines calculated from courses and distances do not form a closed figure. I checked the adjacent lots and found similar results, but the worst was yet to come.
Point 67 was found in a stone wall, and the stone wall was surveyed for the diagram. The red lines in the diagram represent the courses and distances shown on the subdivision map. So, the surveyor may have located the wall incorrectly.
The distance measured between found corner markers 58 and 67 is 167.84 feet, which is in excess of the record measurement by?ÿ 12.72 feet. Lots 41, 42 and 43 do not close and are short by 0.50, 1.23 and 1.22 feet respectively.
If I were to apportion the excess along the north boundary the corner would be point 77 and the west boundary would be the green line.
If I?ÿ allow the entire excess to go to Lot 41 the corner would be point 57 and the reason would be that it was due to the location of the wall being incorrectly surveyed or calculated... or whatever. This approach kind of follows the shape of the subdivision lot.
If I go out and find a marker at the northwest corner of Lot 42 then the entire problem is moot. And I thought this was going to be easy.
?ÿ
?ÿ
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
I wouldn't recommend proportioning until you have checked the lot west of point 67.?ÿ Maybe the wall was rebuilt in the wrong spot and whatever designates the point went with it?
what do photos pre 1971 show? if the wall was in the same place then that's good evidence that the monument was put there in 71.
This is why we all get paid the big bucks, you know. ???? ???? ?????ÿ
Point 67 was found in a stone wall,
What did you find there? Something definitely set by a surveyor?
The point 67 is a #4 reinforcing rod. All corners found are the same. Those on the points of curvature and tangency are concrete monuments.
?ÿ
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
I can't tell from the photos. Their resolution is too low.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
West of point 67 is a different subdivision from 2005 and the lot does not close there either. It is short by 10 feet. Hopefully there is a corner marker for the property that will end this. Otherwise I will not proportion.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
The distance measured between found corner markers 58 and 67 is 167.84 feet, which is in excess of the record measurement by?ÿ 12.72 feet
?ÿ
West of point 67 is a different subdivision from 2005 and the lot does not close there either. It is short by 10 feet.
Doesn't that make a case to suspect that the rebar in the wall is not in its original location?
You seem to have found something at every corner except one. So it would seem your best bet is really good search for the iron at the NW corner of Lot 42.
Proration is for distributing minor measurement errors, not for hiding 12' busts. So I would not go that way. Isolate the bust. If you find nothing more, I'd hold the short record distance along the northerly line from the iron in the wall. That would be the one least likely to be in error.?ÿ
Of course you are checking adjacent deeds and records for any clue about the veracity of the stone wall.?ÿ And the ground for any hint of an occupation line.
Thank you. I am still on the job. Right now my assumption is that the subdivision lines in 1971 were drawn incorrectly, not that the stone wall has moved. Further, the subsequent subdivision in 2005 merely copied the lines perpetuating the error. There is certainly a lot of evidence there and I will be searching for more later this week.?ÿ?ÿ
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
Point 67 has been there for a long time. I do not think the subdivision was ever marked other than the road bounds. At least, there are no markers shown on the subdivision map. Further, the road bounds were set for acceptance by the town, which, for some reason, was done in 1991 (twenty years after). Another set of maps were recorded for acceptance.
A neighbor told me that a previous owner of their land called a surveyor to mark their lot for a fence and that is how the reinforcing rods got there. The things you find out once your proposal is accepted is always a surprise.
There were a lot of surveyors in this neighborhood and I fear they were hesitant to disagree with each other.?ÿ
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
@not-my-real-name How in the hell does not one but two plats done in the last sixty years not close? I would be standing on my head trying to figure that one out before I try any remedy for one lot or corner.
They are no longer around to ask that question. My feeling is that the first surveyor blunder was covered up in subsequent surveys made. That sounds unethical, I know, but that is my opinion. I might also ask how a town would allow such shoddy work if the subdivision law allows for review by the Planning Board.?ÿ ?ÿ
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
@not-my-real-name?ÿ You probably have explored this but have you considered that the radius at the corner is something other than what was drafted.?ÿ Or that there is a reverse bearing in one of the side lines of Lot 42??ÿ Are all the lots in this plat this way or is this just something isolated to this corner of it??ÿ Are variable width right-of-ways common??ÿ
Examples like this are what keep me wanting to do this job.?ÿ I like a good puzzle and am not ashamed to say that I've bought a few surveys because they were not what I expected.?ÿ We try to establish our fee based on what time we should be expending but in reality we should be basing our fee on the value of the property. How close does your client want you to be??ÿ I agree that proportional measurement should not be considered with these differences.?ÿ
A quick look at this, I think your biggest issue is that the rock wall is not along the deed line - correct. (the iron in the wall still has been proven to be a property corner)?ÿ I would say that you do not show the property to the top of the page.?ÿ It looks like there is a jog in that line to the top property??ÿ What I am wondering: is there a jog in the lines, and the wall was built between the endpoints??ÿ I have seen that a couple of times, even very old stuff, where the deeds show jogs or offsets, and the fence was straight.
Out of curiosity, what is the length of the north line of lot 43 extended SE to the jog of the ROW if it were extended to the SW? Is it in the neighborhood of 12.72'?
That is an interesting thought. It would be 11.5 feet. The road starts off as 50 feet wide then after the jog it is 40 feet wide.
The direction of the stone wall is not even close to being the same as the deed line though. The variance is 7 degrees.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
The stone wall is called for in the deeds. It does not fit with the course and distance called for in the deed.
I don't think the wall moved. We spoke with the neighbors about it and they told us the area was an old farm.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.