R.J. Schneider, post: 452828, member: 409 wrote: hmmmm...
R/W referring to the west R/W of the block.... Should have mentioned.
Brian McEachern, post: 452835, member: 9299 wrote: R/W referring to the west R/W of the block.... Should have mentioned.
No, that's me thinking the taking was from 14th or 15th (read that too fast).
I'm looking at Google street view of the area, and trying to see it. The street view is showing dated imagery where Ave. C was once old asphalt with construction on the beach side, which then somehow morphs into more recent imgery of new marina facilties.
Something that caught my eye was the building on (roughly) Lot 12 Blk 8, and the buildings across the street from it. It's hard to tell from a street view but, do you think they were built on the old platted 60' row ?
My though here is, if they were built up to the old row (60' face/face) that would be a good indicator of the row, and from that you could pull the 125' East from there to find an interior corner(s) on Blk 8 and use that as a guide for your block to the South. For the middle of Blk 8 I would use a split in the power poles on either side of 15th to get you within shovel or Shoenstadt range of the midline of Blk 8.
Here in Houston the power company does a good job of being within 1'-1.5' of the row. They have the money and resources to do this.
I think this would work because from the looks of it the interior of both blocks 8 and 9 look to remain the most intact or unscathed of what seems to be out there. From the interior you could work your way outwards with some more reasonable searches and assumptions.
edit: One of my bets would be that Montreal Ave. is likely to hold the most original alignment being as how it was originally mapped or monumented in the original plat.
R.J. Schneider, post: 452851, member: 409 wrote: For the middle of Blk 8 I would use a split in the power poles on either side of 15th to get you within shovel or Shoenstadt range of the midline of Blk 8.
Here in Houston the power company does a good job of being within 1'-1.5' of the row. They have the money and resources to do this.I think this would work because from the looks of it the interior of both blocks 8 and 9 look to remain the most intact or unscathed of what seems to be out there. From the interior you could work your way outwards with some more reasonable searches and assumptions.
edit: One of my bets would be that Montreal Ave. is likely to hold the most original alignment being as how it was originally mapped or monumented in the original plat.
I left out at least one key detail in my previous post, my apologies, the most notable detail not included would be that the control I am working off of for block 9, is the resolution for block 8. We also surveyed block 8, the block directly north of the block in question. You are correct in that the interior of the lots for sure helped to resolve the solution the northerly block. Our calc's have gotten us within the 1.5' mark, hence the photo of 4 points, however the Shoenstadt is useless here. I cannot lament enough about the singing of salvation from the ole' detector only to be let down by literally you name it, other than what you are looking for. Given the previous block surveys, without the 1.5' radius calc for digging, I don't even use the detector, metal garbage everywhere. For this block, I have dug 3' holes, 2' deep for batteries. Also, Montreal Ave. has also since been "redeveloped" and hasn't been Montreal Ave since at least 1950, US 1 has been the one of the main routes through the east coast of FLA since it's creation. The NW block corner of Block 8, is a building corner at the back of walk....
I just didn't make it very clear, but I did mention it 😉
Brian McEachern, post: 451451, member: 9299 wrote: This series of projects is in Riviera Beach, FL. Home of the Port of Palm Beach. Originally this area was platted in the early 1920's and there aren't two blocks that agree north, south, east, or west. We recently surveyed the block just north of this one and I was able to come up with a decent resolution. Working off of that job, the block to south doesn't agree by feet. Similar on the other blocks we have done here recently. No platted CL, and very few block corners left. Very tough place to work... .
Brian McEachern, post: 452868, member: 9299 wrote: I left out at least one key detail in my previous post, my apologies, the most notable detail not included would be that the control I am working off of for block 9, is the resolution for block 8. We also surveyed block 8, the block directly north of the block in question. You are correct in that the interior of the lots for sure helped to resolve the solution the northerly block. Our calc's have gotten us within the 1.5' mar
No, you did mention that, I just got lost in looking at Google street view and thinking it out in my own head.
Pincushions are depressing. Ultimately, they are a statement by a surveyor that his work is superior - he can't accept the inferior surveyor's work. Surveyors who set pincushions transform a legal boundary line, over resolvable MEASUREMENT conflicts, into unnecessary legal problems for landowners, who now have to grieve and fight over little slivers of land created by professional land surveyors. Landowners laugh at us for this practice. then they hate us when they have to hire lawyers to try to figure out which survey is "right".
These are great pics of surveyor's droppings!
If you ignore the parallelogram the subdivision plat creates, with the North line of the subdivision and the South line of Government lot 33, and base a construction on all parallel and perpendicular, you can gain or lose 7.5' along the North or South line of Blk 9, or 4.5' along the West line of the same block.
It's hard to imagine being that close to one of the few called for monuments on that plat, and then gaining that much error. Wouldn't FDOT, the county, the city, or some deed record mention that iron pin ?
Brian McEachern, post: 452824, member: 9299 wrote: - Interior lots at one time had houses, since demolished.
Got a hold of a digital copy of the plat to share, attached is the pdf with the full plat and "zoomability" - below is an image of the majority of the plat. At the extremities of the south line, all there was was a "stake" on the south line of "North St." which is now E. 14th St., and "inlet Ave." is now E. 15th, Oak St. Is now Ave. C, and Montreal is now U.S. Fed. HWY 1 and the R/W has increased on both sides by about 15'. We also surveyed block 8 recently, as well as part of block 3, and block 6. Additionally we have done two blocks directly south of this page of the plat, same Inlet Grove however. No two blocks agree, and given the lack of angular reference, age of layout, and construction it is easy to see that over the years some hodgepodgery has gone on...
Sorry for late to the game. The subd map is gorgeous compared to some in North Fla. There are several subd there that I have seen where the only distance you have on the map is where width of r-o-w was stated. There you need to do a section breakdown and work with occupation. Out of curiosity, have you talked to the guy with the capped iron? Maybe he can give you an explanation on his placement. Short of that, recovering centerline and then prorating lots seems your best bet, I think.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
R.J. Schneider, post: 452894, member: 409 wrote: If you ignore the parallelogram the subdivision plat creates, with the North line of the subdivision and the South line of Government lot 33, and base a construction on all parallel and perpendicular, you can gain or lose 7.5' along the North or South line of Blk 9, or 4.5' along the West line of the same block.
It's hard to imagine being that close to one of the few called for monuments on that plat, and then gaining that much error. Wouldn't FDOT, the county, the city, or some deed record mention that iron pin ?
No, FDOT would not mention that iron on a R-O-W map. In FL, right of way maps have a statement that "This map is not a survey". If he checks control maps, that may have the iron but depending on the year, it may not.
Also remember that depending on the year the irons were set, they might not have had magnetic locators, they could have been out there with dip needles. That may explain part of the pin cushion. The most important data, I think is talking to whomever set the capped iron.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Jawja, post: 453231, member: 12766 wrote: There you need to do a section breakdown and work with occupation. Out of curiosity, have you talked to the guy with the capped iron?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Fortunately we didn't have too. We were able to come up with a resolution with what other points I did find and holding the newly improved back of walk of US1 and Ave C for east and west, and a few other points I found for north and south including one in the photo. In the photo, the southern most pipe was held, which is the one at the the top of the photo and the others referenced on our map.
Brian McEachern, post: 453379, member: 9299 wrote: In the photo, the southern most pipe was held, which is the one at the the top of the photo and the others referenced on our map.
fwiw, I agree with you that the 1/2"IP has a more legitimate feel to it. If I were nearer to Florida would have run the shovel for you. 😀
Jawja, post: 453231, member: 12766 wrote: Sorry for late to the game. The subd map is gorgeous compared to some in North Fla. There are several subd there that I have seen where the only distance you have on the map is where width of r-o-w was stated. There you need to do a section breakdown and work with occupation.
Interesting to guess at how that survey was performed, back in 1917, and what type of instrument or accuracy they might have achieved.
Tom Wilson posted here once that the old Gurley instruments had a reticule as thick as a number two pencil at two hundred feet, If I remember that correctly.
For some reason Surveyor Frank never touches any of the lot lines on government lot 33. everything becomes an excess or reserve.
