I missed the coordinate sheet in the original op. Being able to see how the back irons fall in relation to the row control is an important bit of information.
If this is in Texas and depending on what part this is some information I have come upon in the real world of subdivision retracement in East Texas.
1) They usually traversed the Streets and the Back lines and almost never made a field tie between the front pins and the back pins.
2) If the side lines of lots are only shown to the nearest foot that distance was scaled so you really can't use it to set a front pin off of back line control or vice versa
TxSRVYR, post: 378220, member: 11744 wrote: If you're curious I attached the final result.
If you ever get the chance, I recommend reviewing "Surveyor's Report 11-836D", dated March 30, 2011, by Texas RPLS #4341.
...the positions of those markers remaining in place undisturbed are ordinarily considered as a matter of law to fix upon the ground the corner that each was set to mark...where original undisturbed markers cannot be found, then the question becomes one of examining the evidence to determine the most likely location in which the corner was originally marked...in this case, that evidence includes the calls for course and distanced appearing upon the plat...
DDSM
(no gunfights, but a good read.)
Kent McMillan, post: 377973, member: 3 wrote: The professional answer, of course is that what you've been provided isn't sufficient to give a professional opinion.
There are no uncertainties attached to the RTKGPS coordinates. They are just numbers obtained by magic, it would appear, with no indication whether they have standard errors of +/-1m, +/-0.1m, or +/-1cm.
There is nothing presented that would connect any of the survey markers found with the subdivision plat. The markers in the street were obviously set after the subdivision construction was completed, but presumably the subdivision was laid out before construction began. So which represent the survey shown upon the plat? Only the rebar in concrete at the "NE Cor Lot 10" could possibly be an original corner unless there is something shown on the subdivision plat to indicate otherwise.
In the real world, unless one is just a cog in a defective surveying machine cranking out El Cheapo Surveys, it would be time to get a sufficient amount of information to actually form a defensible opinion.
Roger that!
Dan B. Robison, post: 378256, member: 34 wrote: If you ever get the chance, I recommend reviewing "Surveyor's Report 11-836D", dated March 30, 2011, by Texas RPLS #4341.
I'd post a copy of that report, but I'd have to redact more than a few names first. It was fourteen pages of action-packed adventure and was accompanied by a 24" x 36" map - all to determine the disputed location of the line between two lots.
I just read your report. Very interesting.
So, if I was in a surveying class in Tx, I would likely follow Kent's advice. Can't go far wrong.
Kent McMillan, post: 378274, member: 3 wrote: I'd post a copy of that report, but I'd have to redact more than a few names first. It was fourteen pages of action-packed adventure and was accompanied by a 24" x 36" map - all to determine the disputed location of the line between two lots.
How many billable hours did that take?
So, in the real world, you'd go back and find more corners, period. For the sake of your class, all the angles are 90å¡ and the street monuments are the same bearing as the back line monuments. So, you proportion in between the found monuments to set in the back corners of 7. Then give the street it's width, cut your 90å¡ and intersect the lines. That's the answer they're looking for.
In the real world though, there is more to be found and we will by GOD find it. It may not be all you want, but a helluva lot more than that, such as fences to see if they are in congruence with where the mythical calculations come up, et cetera. You're only having to float 0.73 feet over 528 feet so it shouldn't be too bad.
dmyhill, post: 378303, member: 1137 wrote: How many billable hours did that take?
I don't recall exactly. It was a moderately expensive survey, but it was much cheaper than the adjoining landowners hiring attorneys to slug it out on their behalf. What was at issue was where the common lot line as described in their respective deeds was located on the ground and whether an expensive house under construction on one of the lots was incorrectly sited.
Okay, I cheated and looked. It took:
6.00 hrs. Research work
32.75 hrs. Field work
12.00 hrs. Preparation of Abstract and Preliminary reports A and B
15.25 hrs. Preparation of reports C and D (19 pg. total) and Map of Survey.
Kent McMillan, post: 378311, member: 3 wrote: ...expensive house under construction on one of the lots was incorrectly sited.
Don't forget the "Heritage Tree"...
I enjoyed the email Variance comments almost as much as the Survey Report:
...because it is my understanding that the problem seems was created by two faulty surveys and a builder whose proceedings may have been less than prudent...I know too well that what builders say, and even promise, and what they do are not always the same...
...the transgression was foreseeable and avoidable...survey information and evidence of setback compliance as not well handled...UNSTAMPED surveys were presented as factual...
...someday in the future, this would all plow over and we would have great neighbors...
Kent,
Did you get a chance to make a presentation to the Board of Adjustment/Sign Review Board?
DDSM
Dan B. Robison, post: 378312, member: 34 wrote: Did you get a chance to make a presentation to the Board of Adjustment/Sign Review Board?
No, I was more than content to have the owners of the lot upon which the house was under construction make their case. They were the ones with the half-finished house that had its building permit in limbo while the construction loan and note on the land was drawing interest.
BTW, I hadn't realized that my Surveyor's Report is now in the public record, but the google will eventually know pretty much everything.
Kent McMillan, post: 378311, member: 3 wrote: I don't recall exactly. It was a moderately expensive survey, but it was much cheaper than the adjoining landowners hiring attorneys to slug it out on their behalf. What was at issue was where the common lot line as described in their respective deeds was located on the ground and whether an expensive house under construction on one of the lots was incorrectly sited.
Okay, I cheated and looked. It took:
6.00 hrs. Research work
32.75 hrs. Field work
12.00 hrs. Preparation of Abstract and Preliminary reports A and B
15.25 hrs. Preparation of reports C and D (19 pg. total) and Map of Survey.
Well, however they came to hire a surveyor rather than just suing each other, it was certainly a deal. Around here that amount of work would be significant, and still much less than getting lawyer involved.
What is a surveyor's report? Is that essentially what we term a "Record of Survey" out here on the looney left coast?
dmyhill, post: 378317, member: 1137 wrote: Well, however they came to hire a surveyor rather than just suing each other, it was certainly a deal. Around here that amount of work would be significant, and still much less than getting lawyer involved.
What is a surveyor's report? Is that essentially what we term a "Record of Survey" out here on the looney left coast?
No. In Texas it is a narrative explaining the findings. The board does not require the registrant prepare one unless it's needed. Basically, when you need to convey more than the description (field notes) and plat can convey, you use this. There is no form that must be adhered to that I'm aware of. My shortest is around 4 pages. The longest is around 10-12 pages. That does not include plat and descriptions. I do not do them on every survey. If there is enough real estate on the plat, then that's where the report goes many times in the form of notes. Some disagree with this method, but as I mentioned, there is no set form to follow. Kent's run long because of the list of coordinates. If he dropped that, it would be close to what most of us prepare.
dmyhill, post: 378317, member: 1137 wrote: Well, however they came to hire a surveyor rather than just suing each other, it was certainly a deal. Around here that amount of work would be significant, and still much less than getting lawyer involved.
What is a surveyor's report? Is that essentially what we term a "Record of Survey" out here on the looney left coast?
A Surveyor's Report is typically a written narrative or discussion, which may include sketches and diagrams, intended to amplify or explain some matter in a way that a map alone cannot readily do.
I've written quite a few Surveyor's Reports over the years and they have dealt with a pretty wide spectrum of topics, ranging from some fairly obscure historical questions such as whether a particular survey shown upon the Texas GLO official county map was even a valid survey or not, to something as basic as how a lot line should be run from a survey marker that is shown upon the record plat as touching the boundary of the tract subdivided to ... actually reach the boundary of the tract subdivided.
They are making a fortune with "Hamilton - An American Musical"
Just think...
Boundary - A Texas Gun Fight
Or
Red River - The OklaTex War
It would simply be singing a Surveyor Report to some Rap (hip hop or country/western) tunes...
$120 per...fill all the seats at the Planning meeting...
DDSM
(Good job on the report, Kent)
Dan B. Robison, post: 378329, member: 34 wrote: (Good job on the report, Kent)
Thanks. The Surveyor's Report is in many ways a much more valuable product than the maps which only other surveyors really understand with any sophistication. I try to write for the comprehension level of a person of normal intellect with an understanding of the basics and avoid as many details that would mainly make sense to surveyors as I can. I consider a report to be much more effective than a hologram logo as a means of conveying quality of service.
Kent McMillan, post: 378333, member: 3 wrote: Thanks. The Surveyor's Report is in many ways a much more valuable product than the maps which only other surveyors really understand with any sophistication. I try to write for the comprehension level of a person of normal intellect with an understanding of the basics and avoid as many details that would mainly make sense to surveyors as I can. I consider a report to be much more effective than a hologram logo as a means of conveying quality of service.
How are you able to Survey in Austin if some other company has All the Points?
Dan B. Robison, post: 378329, member: 34 wrote:
[SNIP] (Good job on the report, Kent) [/SNIP]
A major +1 on that. Very thorough.
Dave Karoly, post: 378336, member: 94 wrote: How are you able to Survey in Austin if some other company has All the Points?
It would seem to be a challenge unless you have The Bulletin.
dmyhill, post: 378303, member: 1137 wrote: So, if I was in a surveying class in Tx, I would likely follow Kent's advice. Can't go far wrong.
How many billable hours did that take?
The class is at Oklahoma State OKC , but the advice is still welcome and helpful!
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
