I don't know where the "kings gets his" argument began with reference to highways and streets. It seems to be held by some people.
But, when there is evidence of originality then that all goes away.
So I'm putting together blocks in a developed area, zero lot lines, and the evidence of building locations, ect leaves the streets short.
Can't help it, that's the way it is.
1890 subdivision, the length of the block record 275' east west, measured from building foundations and other evidence to be 274.96'. The two streets become 79.78' for the street west of the block and 99.69' for the street south of the block while record is 80 and 100.?ÿ
Strange thing is that both short streets do not show up on a full subdivision plat, they are both at the edges of three subdivisions that meet at the T-intersection.
Whether this is what caused the shortages it's difficult to say.
The alley that splits the block east-west has buildings along it measuring 20.15' between them, the alley is 20'. If you split the buildings and use 10' you miss the buildings by .07' and the 150' lots north and south of the alley become 149.96'. The block is as close to square as I've ever seen.
I simply can't give the king his but I do know there will be a DOT reconstruction for one of the streets, they will no doubt have a different opinion and want the 80' to be 80.00.?ÿ?ÿ
Strange thing is that both short streets do not show up on a full subdivision plat, they are both at the edges of three subdivisions that meet at the T-intersection.
Were the original subdivisions of three different properties??ÿ Streets with parts granted at different times can only go to the original property lines.?ÿ
With the 0.04 i can live with those busts( not really a bust) from a 130 yo survey where they probably did it as tight as they could then, but the 0.31 and 0.22 busts are 'gonna need some 'splaining'!?ÿ Some times its "good to be the King"....
?ÿ
?ÿ
1890 subdivision
Are the numbers on the plat rounded to the nearest foot??ÿ ?????ÿ
as a DOT surveyor (who was trained and licensed in private practice) I can tell you that a few hundreths I don't care about, but miss it by a long ways and you just cant short the public of the right to the street.?ÿ
A drastic example from last year, a guy came from a rear corner the record to set the front corners of a lot and I know he never looked across the street because the L/O sent me the .dwg this guy made the 100' row 97 and change. I set him down and sent him a nice email.?ÿ
The highway is a boundary just like any other.
There are rights on both sides and the monuments have been relied upon.
I measure and show what I measured on my maps. There is no king.
Also, as FL/GA wrote, the widths are usually given to the nearest foot.?ÿ
The king gets his, unless there is evidence that he didn't get his at the beginning. Boundaries are controlled by original monuments, even if they are DOT ROWs and even if the original monuments were not set by a licensed surveyor.?ÿ
Whenever this comes up their are naysayers, but they have as yet not?ÿ come up with any precedence that proves otherwise, other than bullying by a DOT.?ÿ
There are clearly two groups with opposite views, at all times, on this issue.?ÿ The truth is probably a little of both views.
?ÿ
@flga-2
Yes, lots are 25' x 150', alleys are 20', streets are 60', 80', 100'.?ÿ
Then leave the dimensions as platted alone. You are worrying about peanuts when working with coconuts. ?????ÿ
@flga-2
Would love to of course, we are doing a replat for a new subdivision so I have to "meet the standard" for the city which will be distances to .01' and bearings to 1". The new lots will not look like the existing ones.
The city won't be concerned about any of this, I'm just putting out there my usual process of holding long standing evidence which some will say conflicts with record and the public should get 80.000'.
I don't hold to that opinion.
There are no original monuments in these areas, full street reconstruction has happened many times so everything is wiped out and one street is under DOT authority, that one will be torn apart as soon as money is available and my monuments will probably be removed within a couple of years.?ÿ
Over the years we've worked on that street for a number of DOT projects, the 80' dimension has never been found to be 80.00, some areas it a bit more, some a bit less.?ÿ
?ÿ
Monuments hold, even if that monument happens to be a foundation or building. If that makes the street short, so be it.
So the courts tell us, but there are countless surveyors who won't believe that becasue, "they were always tought", or they confuse the public's immunity from prescriptive/adverse rights with a boundary doctrine, or they misapply Brown's proportioning theory, or because they have been bullied by a DOT to belive believe otherwise.?ÿ
Like many boundary issues, there is no one right answer about the King and his full ROW measure.?ÿ ?ÿWe may all be posting about particular situations where the ROW gets full measure or not.?ÿ As with many boundary issues, the chain of title and history of surveys can matter, as applied to the senior/junior boundary rights in title, and the rights of the sovereign rights of federal, state, county or city.?ÿ ?ÿ
For example, in Alaska, many right-of-ways for the primary highway system are founded in Public Land Orders that set aside withdrawls of federal lands from entry on previously un-reserved public domain land to enable highways to be route sited, designed and built, generally prior to WWII.?ÿ At that point, Alaska was a territory and 99% in federal ownership.?ÿ A withdrawal had the effect of prohibiting any entry on that portion of the federal lands, and if it was say a 300 foot strip, it is hard to argue that a full measure applies as entry was prohibited.?ÿ So as adjoining entry was done that bounded the PLO right of way, a sloppy survey, or a survey based on surveys not providing for full measure of the right-of-way basically become closing lines upon the King's full measure.?ÿ ?ÿAs the highways were developed in the 1960s, many of the construction contracts had work items to set highway ROW posts, which were included in the work, and shown on the highway asbuilts.?ÿ However, these were done by the contractor without need for a licensed land surveyor, many times by laborer, or a construction surveyor.?ÿ You cant convince me, nor the courts in prior cases, that such construction staking diminished the sovereign rights to prohibit entry into the full measure ROW set aside by the PLO.?ÿ Many surveyors have jumped on the construction contract ROW markers as gold monumentation of the ADOT&PF rights to ROW, and do so at their own risk and peril.?ÿ I've seen this issue from many angles:?ÿ as a private PLS, as a DOT&PF Survey Manager and ROW Specialist, and as a BLM Cadastral Chief.?ÿ ?ÿI recommend proceed with caution, and analyze the particulars of the right-of-way and chains of title and surveys.?ÿ Engage your DOT and County/City Surveyors, and make a defendable decision about that King's measure.
The Alaska PLO withdrawals were not surveyed though, so there is no original monument and this conversation doesnt really apply. The closest most of the PLO highways come to original monuments were the W.C.'s set on the section lines where they cross the highways. These are often the best way to reesatblish the location of the the centerline at the time of the PLOs, but don't monument the ROWs.
@aliquot That's true, but the point I was trying to make is many think the construction highway ROW markers are original monuments of the ROW.?ÿ I agree with you about the ties to the rectangular lines and corners being many times the best evidence of the PLO location.
@flga-2 peanuts to coconuts??ÿ Also known as small potatoes
