Just received an email from a client for whom we performed a boundary, his lawyer said that the the North line, deeded @ 108.75 is wrong because the tax map calls 110' and it must match Department of Finance to be valid. Maybe it should've been annotated as "108.75'or whatever works"
Well, Luke, educating a lawyer, is a bit like selling manure to a cow. They they feel like the manure market is exclusive, unto themselves.
Carry on...
Tell the attorney to pencil in any changes he wants until he is satisfied and send a copy to his State BOR for interpretation and debate and CC the same to your State BOR so they can have a good laugh.
Hey! ?ÿStop insulting cows by comparing them to attorneys.
But, but the "official" acreage is 241.77342198, and you show 260.54, why are you so far off?
Because I have a license to make that determination and you don't. ?ÿDumb bass!
Plot thickens...
Our lawyer informs clients lawyer that a the line length cannot be changed willy nilly to match an "idealized" tax map not based on a survey and used solely for taxing/reference, in a more eloquent manner of course. Clients lawyer replies with "Then we need to change tax map dimension, we can't file for a permit until Department of Finance & survey show the same dimension, can you assist us in this?"
It's Queens buddy, good luck....
Plot thickens...
Our lawyer informs clients lawyer that a the line length cannot be changed willy nilly to match an "idealized" tax map not based on a survey and used solely for taxing/reference, in a more eloquent manner of course. Clients lawyer replies with "Then we need to change tax map dimension, we can't file for a permit until Department of Finance & survey show the same dimension, can you assist us in this?"
It's Queens buddy, good luck....
As someone that has never worked in Queens (and God willing never will) I'm guessing it is not necessary for the survey to match the tax map in order to receive a permit.
Plot thickens...
Our lawyer informs clients lawyer that a the line length cannot be changed willy nilly to match an "idealized" tax map not based on a survey and used solely for taxing/reference, in a more eloquent manner of course. Clients lawyer replies with "Then we need to change tax map dimension, we can't file for a permit until Department of Finance & survey show the same dimension, can you assist us in this?"
It's Queens buddy, good luck....
As someone that has never worked in Queens (and God willing never will) I'm guessing it is not necessary for the survey to match the tax map in order to receive a permit.
I sure hope not....
If our tax maps controlled then most landowners would own into the public streets, no fences would be on the line, many houses would be built over property lines and very few properties would conform with setbacks, thankfully they don't control here.
I guess I'd have to ask this lawyer why he needed a survey in the first place if the tax map is always definitive?
I worked on a survey some time back in an area that had been platted in the early 1920's, a?ÿpredictable urban plat of the time with 25' x 140' lots separated at the rear by a 20' alley.?ÿ I believe the blocks had 16 lots fronting on one street with 16 fronting on the next street for a total of 32 lots in each block.?ÿ This particular block was on the plat boundary and the last lot in each block was designated as bearing the "excess or deficiency" with specific dimensions.?ÿ Instead of a standard 25' lot, the dimensions of each 'last lot'?ÿwere something along the lines of "20.1' " and growing smaller than that in a predictable direction.?ÿ This client had purchased three lots on the end of a block.?ÿ Two "standard" lots of 25' and one that was labeled "19.7' "; giving the property a platted width of 69.7'.
Due to a lot of factors and the fact that I actually did?ÿa good job of retracing the original survey the property only had a width of 68.1', a foot-and-a-half shorter than what was indicated on the plat. And just FYI, I found two pins that reflected that width.
The client was building a commercial building and had already applied for a permit with a site plan that indicated platted distances.?ÿ Unknown to me the "deficiency" of the width screwed up his parking stall depths which were already at a minimum.?ÿ According to the client pandemonium ensued.
I received several phone calls and correspondence from the client's clueless attorney demanding I resurvey the property and "set the property corners in their proper position as indicated by?ÿthe legal and recorded document".?ÿ I think I was even threatened with a law suit to recoup any financial damages if I did not comply.
I turned it all over to my attorney and the humorous correspondence eventually ceased.?ÿ The term "clueless" I used for the client's attorney was actually related to me by a second surveyor hired to "straighten thing out".?ÿ I gave him a copy of all my notes and heard little else from the ordeal.?ÿ The other surveyor and I had several conversations.?ÿ He wished he had never answered that phone call.
I don't know if he ever got paid. ??ÿ
?ÿ
I was recently working with an energy company. They needed to go through a lengthy permitting process, part of which is some filings with state regulators.
One of which was filing some maps showing conditions on the ground, neighbors buildings, roads, power lines, railroads, highways, ect. I had the section lines almost completely figured out and much of the property lines and sent it to them in state plane. Unknown to me they sent a bunch of info with GIS lines some 150' or more shifted from real lines. I asked why they did that and they said they couldn't use mine cause they HAD to use OFFICIAL lines.
Plot thickens...
Our lawyer informs clients lawyer that a the line length cannot be changed willy nilly to match an "idealized" tax map not based on a survey and used solely for taxing/reference, in a more eloquent manner of course. Clients lawyer replies with "Then we need to change tax map dimension, we can't file for a permit until Department of Finance & survey show the same dimension, can you assist us in this?"
It's Queens buddy, good luck....
As someone that has never worked in Queens (and God willing never will) I'm guessing it is not necessary for the survey to match the tax map in order to receive a permit.
I sure hope not....
Got a little more of the story today. The power @ be in the Department of Finance is insisting that before the client?ÿcan?ÿhave his application?ÿfor a tax lot merger?ÿof the 3?ÿtax lots (all adjoining & owned by client) we surveyed, they ALL must match the DOF Tax Map exactly. Feel like the DOF may be trying to force surveyors to "smudge" a little for their own ego/laziness/ignorance/?ÿarrogance... Pick an adjective.
Long of short, we?ÿreplied that our?ÿnumbers CAN NOT and WILL NOT change?ÿand a solution is to be sought through the attorneys & the DOF.?ÿ
If our tax maps controlled then most landowners would own into the public streets, no fences would be on the line, many houses would be built over property lines and very few properties would conform with setbacks, thankfully they don't control here.
Spot on!?ÿ Guess what my county based their Parcel Layer on for the GIS.?ÿ So it gets worse, now available online with a background image.?ÿ Other than for a few guys like me the tax map (recorders map) is the defacto cadastral map for the county.?ÿ There isn't anything else, county hasn't had a county surveyor since 1958. There are no surveyor records at all except for filed surveys since about 1990, Most of these are worse than the tax map.?ÿ Life goes on for landowners, good there are fences.?ÿ I've fought the tax map since day one. I call it the virtual paper record.
Here is the best part of the "tax maps."?ÿ None (or near to) of the state road deeds are plotted on the tax maps.?ÿ When I inquired as to why I was told since they are not taxed we didn't put them on the map.?ÿ You can't see the roads for the most part on the recorders "tax" maps.?ÿ So much for the legitimacy of the maps.?ÿ The next best part is all the aliquot parcels being assigned 330, 660, 1320, 2640, etc. distances on the tax map.?ÿ Most of the public takes it for gospel, will argue with you about it.?ÿ What's heck's wrong with a surveyor that can't read the tax map!
Ask the Tax Accessor or whoever has control over the map and/or DOF if they carry the liability of guaranteeing that the map is the law of the land.
?
Perhaps your stubborn attorney should look here:
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/finance/downloads/pdf/dtm_nycitymap_user_guide.pdf
The disclaimer seems pretty clear.?ÿ
Then there is the NY City practice of "official" measurements vs. actual.?ÿ I am sure those who work there regularly can explain it better than I can.?ÿ Surveys I've seen show a theoretical block or lot distance, generally in even feet, and the surveyed, actual distance that one can use to build improvements.?ÿ It seems this attorney needs to understand where he is practicing.
Ken
?ÿ
?ÿ
What is a "Department of Finance"?
What is a "Department of Finance"?
In my area it's the department that handles the money.?ÿ Payments to and disbursements by the public agency go through the Finance Department.
rich one here recently, and ENTIRELY at the feet of GIS:?ÿ parent tract is in CAD maps.?ÿ parent tract gets subdivided and platted, of course resulting survey has bearing and distance variations on the order of usual (say sub-minute and a tenth or so along any given line).?ÿ GIS then shoves the new subdivision into the CAD maps on top of the old parent tract, spots the slight differences, and declares parent tract grantor as owner of area in discrepancy.?ÿ amounts to- no joke- 212 square feet out of like 20 acres.?ÿ gets even better- that 212 square feet is a strip of, at most, about a tenth wide that, of course, lies between the tract in question and the entirety of interstate right-of-way that the tract adjoins.
so the predictable response from attorneys ensues, and the seller had to jump through a doubly small hoop to get title AND access unclouded.
