I am needing some input on the general opinion of monumenting boundaries in Texas.?ÿ Texas Administrative Code 663.17(b) states:?ÿ "When delineating a property or boundary line as an integral portion of a survey (survey being defined in the Act, ??1071.002(6) or (8)), the land surveyor shall set, or leave as found, an adequate quantity of monuments of a stable and reasonably permanent nature to represent or reference the property or boundary corners. All survey markers shall be shown and described with sufficient evidence of the location of such markers on the land surveyors' drawing, written description or report."?ÿ My question is: how many monuments constitute "an adequate quantity"??ÿ For me wherever it is possible to set a corner I feel that one should be set, or left as found, but that certainly is not common practice around here anymore.?ÿ It is becoming more and more common to find descriptions much like the one attached to this post, maybe not quite as extreme, but still lacking in my opinion.?ÿ
The tract described in the attachment is a "73.341 acre" tract with 36 angle points in the boundary, 9 of which are along state right of way and 27 along the CL of a creek.?ÿ The RPLS who prepared the description set two monuments along the state right of way (one at the NEC and one at the SEC) and then set two reference monuments (one near the SWC and one near the NWC). No other monuments are called for being found or set for this tract.?ÿ
I can cut him some slack for not monumenting the CL of the creek, but I certainly feel that it falls well short of having an adequate number of monuments set or left as found.?ÿ What is everyone else's opinion on this??ÿ?ÿ
I will save the reference bearing used and lack of controlling monuments for another gripe session.?ÿ
I would have staked every corner I did not find, not sure what I do at the Creek, I would need to look at it first to decide. I agree with you it does seem the Surveyor did not do an adequate job of setting corners.?ÿ
He did do it on the 16th and I know corners are supposed to be set before the survey leaves the office, maybe he plans to set them this week.?ÿ
I would call him and say its a $1,500.00 fine per corner not set, that should get him out to set the corners.
?ÿ
Question.?ÿ Is the right of way of the road constant??ÿ If so the road itself is the monument.?ÿ I would set a monument where side lines intersect the right of way, but if the line then follows a line parallel to the centerline then any monuments you might set are superfluous unless you are subdividing from that point.?ÿ As far as the creek, if the center of the creek is the property line then the creek itself is the monument.?ÿ I would set reference monuments where the side lines leave the center of the creek.?ÿ Just my $0.02 worth from a non Texas surveyor.
Andy
The centerline of the creek is a natural monument and I think would not require monumentation except that I might put a witness on the bank where the property boundary comes in. In the presentations I have seen by board members and the investigator, the monuments that can be set should be set.?ÿ Sounds like he needs to set 7 more monuments to finish the job.?ÿ
Scott,?ÿ
He did just complete it on the 16th, but he signed and sealed it (which I removed to keep from dragging him through the mud by name) and by doing so he is saying that it meets TX minimum standards.?ÿ The survey was attached to a deed and it was filed of record at the County Clerk's Office.?ÿ Mentioning that he may go back and set monuments at a later date brings up another question:?ÿ Would those monuments be considered of record dignity since the deed calls for a "point"?
Thanks for our input.?ÿ?ÿ
Question.?ÿ Is the right of way of the road constant??ÿ If so the road itself is the monument.?ÿ I would set a monument where side lines intersect the right of way, but if the line then follows a line parallel to the centerline then any monuments you might set are superfluous unless you are subdividing from that point.?ÿ As far as the creek, if the center of the creek is the property line then the creek itself is the monument.?ÿ I would set reference monuments where the side lines leave the center of the creek.?ÿ Just my $0.02 worth from a non Texas surveyor.
Andy
The right of way width of the road is consistent, however the paved center-line is not consistently located in the center of the monumented right of way (at least it is not at a site I surveyed a few miles down the road).
I don't believe that I would agree that the actual paved road is the monument, not here in TX anyway, and TxDOT is really strict on having PC, PT & angle points monumented.
Thanks for your input.
The minimum would be one physical monument and a reproducable bearing source.
There are 2 actual monuments plus 1 witness monument in place to locate before any retracement can begin.
The problem I am seeing with this description is that the boundary referenced for basis of bearings is not monumented at either end and?ÿ any following the metes and bounds is dependent upon having to retrace the exisiting centerline of the highway. That could put you way down the highway looking for control.
My opinion is that the basis of direction boundary should have been monumented.
I refuse to reach an absolute conclusion until I've had an opportunity to see the drawing. A very well drawn and illustrated boundary drawing can reveal what words do not properly express, sometimes.
0.02
Question.?ÿ Is the right of way of the road constant??ÿ If so the road itself is the monument.?ÿ I would set a monument where side lines intersect the right of way, but if the line then follows a line parallel to the centerline then any monuments you might set are superfluous unless you are subdividing from that point.?ÿ As far as the creek, if the center of the creek is the property line then the creek itself is the monument.?ÿ I would set reference monuments where the side lines leave the center of the creek.?ÿ Just my $0.02 worth from a non Texas surveyor.
Andy
The road itself is not a monument. The engineers and equipment operators don't get to move boundaries, at least not in Texas.
The creek is a monument, so one side is completely monumented. Witness corners are needed where the sidelines hit the creek, and the ROW should have been completely monumented.?ÿ
On it's face, I think there's a fair argument that any single monument and a reliable way to establish bearing could be defined as 'Adequate'. Adequate doesn't mean good or bad, just the minimum needed.
And I agree with you, since the description calls for 'a point', it's clear the surveyor does not intend to set any additional monumentation. Even if he did, this description would compel you to ignore it.
The minimum would be one physical monument and a reproducable bearing source.
There are 2 actual monuments plus 1 witness monument in place to locate before any retracement can begin.
The problem I am seeing with this description is that the boundary referenced for basis of bearings is not monumented at either end and?ÿ any following the metes and bounds is dependent upon having to retrace the exisiting centerline of the highway. That could put you way down the highway looking for control.
My opinion is that the basis of direction boundary should have been monumented.
I refuse to reach an absolute conclusion until I've had an opportunity to see the drawing. A very well drawn and illustrated boundary drawing can reveal what words do not properly express, sometimes.
0.02
Yikes, even if that were truly the minimum required, I don't think I could sleep with that approach to monumentation not just from being concerned about how the board would view it but even moreso because I don't feel that I would be providing the client with what they need to really understand the limits and location of their boundary.?ÿ Of course if I keep loosing jobs to those who don't monument all the corners because I can't compete with their price I also won't be able to eat.?ÿ Right now I am going to go with being hungry and having a clear conscience.
I?ÿ have attached the plat that was filed along with the previous metes & bounds description, don't adjust your eyes, it is indeed only on the top half of an 8.5x11 sheet.