I have an easement that I am writing a description for that is between two elevations (parking garage). I typically have written the elevations in the preamble, suchas "... above an elevation of 55.5 feet, and below an elevation of 67.5 feet..."?ÿ
As I am looking at this it occurs to me that this is an elevation greater than 55.5 feet and less than 67.5 feet, but I want to include those elevations (just to be 100% clear). Being more like 'greater than or equal to', and 'less than or equal to'.?ÿ
Is there a way to revise?ÿ"... above an elevation of 55.5 feet, and below an elevation of 67.5 feet..." that is clean and effective? Just curious what your thoughts are.?ÿ
.... between elevations 55.5 feet, and 67.5 feet relative to [whatever base]
I use "having a lower boundary at elevation xxx.xx and an upper boundary at elevation xxx.xx" then give the reference datum information.?ÿ
...limited to elevations of 55.5 feet to 67.5 feet, inclusive, as referenced from such and such mark...?ÿ
I have always thought of vertical easements as having a floor elevation and a ceiling elevation.
I've done a few of these. They are generally between the deck of one floor and the ceiling of another. Sometimes they include ramps, sometimes not. In any event the garage elements should serve as the 'monuments'. Any reference to absolute elevations should include datum and derivation. Just remember, it's no different than a deeded parcel. Dimensions yield to undisturbed monuments...
Possibly?ÿ "at or above"..."at or below"
Easements with vertical components are pretty common in NYC.?ÿ The language is usually something along the lines of "Above a lower limiting plane of elevation xx.xx", "Below an upper limiting plane of elevation xx.xx", or "Between a lower limiting plane of xx.xx and an upper limiting plane of xx.xx".?ÿ Far too many older descriptions do not include a datum or just reference a sidewalk grade.
Shouldn't there be a bounds element with those descriptions?
Shouldn't there be a bounds element with those descriptions?
The bounds would be the elevation.
Shouldn't there be a bounds element with those descriptions?
The bounds would be the elevation.
That seems like a metes to me, a floor, ceiling or some kind of physical structure would be a bounds. I would include that in the description if it's valid.
Shouldn't there be a bounds element with those descriptions?
The bounds would be the elevation.
That seems like a metes to me, a floor, ceiling or some kind of physical structure would be a bounds. I would include that in the description if it's valid.
I would call the Metes the distance between the two elevations, and the elevation the bounds. Elevations around lakes are used for property lines.
An elevation is a dimension related to some other base reference. If the elevation is memorialized by a physical object, the object is the bound.
In the case of a structure, a proper bound would be 'from elevation xxx.xx, as marked by the top of garage floor deck at or near said elevation... '. The garage floor becomes the bound. Again, if elevations are used a datum and derivation should be cited.?ÿ