I work in several counties that have the impossibly narrow RW of one rod (16.5' either side of the section line).?ÿ This RW was bequeathed upon us by Congress prior to statehood...so what can you do??ÿ Any sort of coordinated effort to officially widen any RW in these areas has been non-existent.
I guess in years past a two-rod wide swatch was good enough for mule and buckboard traffic.?ÿ I'm pretty sure it became inadequate with the invention of the motor car...not to mention the rural electrification process after WWII.
Anyway, in these somewhat rural rolling hills the RW line can (and most usually does) still fall in the roadbed.?ÿ Most of the utilities occupying the route all fall outside of the actually prescribed RW line.?ÿ I have prepared thousands of surveys upon which I indicate "uncontested occupied RW" where public utilities fall outside of the one rod wide actual RW.?ÿ Several court rulings over the years have addressed this; at least a few have used the word acquiescence.
There is at least one surveyor in this area that has made a habit of placing "property" pins on a offset.?ÿ Usually 25 or 30 feet.?ÿ While I understand his desire to perpetuate a line monumented outside of an actively maintained area,?ÿ I have grown tired over the years trying to second guess him...and he never returns calls from other surveyors.
Last week I was asked to "replace" a property pin that was disturbed by the placement of a transformer and pad.?ÿ I really dislike this practice due to all the snags and differences that can rear their ugly head.?ÿ There's nothing like working for six hours only to have the property owner look at my stake and say, "That's not where it was at...".?ÿ
This particular case was one of my fellow surveyor's offset pins that got disturbed.?ÿ After much digging around and scratching my head I placed a stake at a point 30' from the section line.?ÿ This seemed to satisfy the property owner.?ÿ My BIG mistake was attempting to explain the offset and show him where his corner was actually located.
We both left there frustrated. 😉
?ÿ
Pure foolishness.?ÿ Such narrow right of ways make no allowance for maintenance of the roadbed by the creation of ditches.?ÿ We have a few 40-foot examples in my home county.?ÿ This is in an area averaging between 35 and 40 inches of annual precipitation.?ÿ It is essential to sever the main roadbed from the general terrain so as to keep the substructure of the roadbed in a generally dry and stable condition.?ÿ The ditches must be able to transport excess water away efficiently.
Thought this post was going to include a video:
Paden,
How do you determine that the "uncontested occupied RW" is actually uncontested?
In Georgia we have lots of roads that have no dedicated right of way, just prescriptive easements.?ÿ Even when there is a dedicated right of way along State Routes we, often, would recommend obtaining a separate easement for new water, power gas, etc. lines.?ÿ This has paid off several times when the widening/relocation of a State Route required the relocation of the utilities.?ÿ Since they were on a separate easement the DOT would have to pay for the replacement caused by their work.?ÿ They didn't like it, but they paid.
Andy
I believe the act of historically allowing the general public free access along with the occupation of the land by public utilities is enough to establish the existence of right-of-way, in Oklahoma anyway.?ÿ
The "uncontested" verbiage was actually created (the first I heard of it anyway) by the Highway Department's legal department.?ÿ This was in an address of highway that was fenced, mowed and maintained by the state in the absence of dedicated (recorded) documentation along with no recorded claim by an owner to the contrary.?ÿ
It seems to work. 😉
I just got handed a project last week that will apparently require a right of way taking.?ÿ I started looking at the records for the area and various plats and ROS from various surveyors show 50, 60, 70, and 80 foot right of ways on the same roads across the decades.?ÿ This might be the first project where I could tell right away that I'm pretty sure I don't want any part of it.?ÿ ?????ÿ
Had a project along a city street many years ago that had started out as a 50-foot county road.?ÿ When they took that area into the city limits, they moved the north side ten feet further north for a total of 60 feet.?ÿ The city street to the east had been platted as 80 feet wide, so, eventually, they widened out to a total of 80 feet, again by expanding only to the north.?ÿ Hope that landowner(s) got paid appropriately at the time.
Sounds a lot like the situation at my sister's place. The gravel 66 ft county road seems to be entirely north of the section line and her property, and when it intersects the paved road and becomes paved itself further along in town, there is an 80 ft ROW again north of the section line. I found a pin that I believe marks the section corner to confirm that interpretation.
The GIS had it wrong originally, but I think it is fixed now. I'm guessing when they laid out the original town around the railroad in the 1800's there was no street there, and it was created along with an addition to the town so it was easier to put it north of the section line.
@bstrand?ÿ
just don't end up here.....
?ÿ
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
?ÿ
???? ????ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
