Tom Adams, post: 393850, member: 7285 wrote: And another thing....how come I've never seen case law on this? I would think there must be some out there, but maybe the fact that everyone in the world except surveyors accepts where the highway was built and markers were set. We are the primary ones trying to make a federal case out of this issue where there is no federal case.
(sorry I'll shut up now)
I was looking through Public Roads under Boundaries in my California Westlaw digest PDF (list of headnotes), the first section is mostly "ownership carries to the centerline" cases so that doesn't apply here. I didn't get very far into the next section so there may be cases in there.
Tom Adams, post: 393850, member: 7285 wrote: And another thing....how come I've never seen case law on this?
Tom Adams, post: 393850, member: 7285 wrote: And another thing....how come I've never seen case law on this?
Look at 423:
And 426:
linebender, post: 393925, member: 449 wrote:
Good one Linebender. I apologize, I was talking about our "tangent" discussion about right-of-way monuments. I treat the original concrete monument with (or nearly with) the same dignity as other original monuments, but many surveyors feel that they are assumed to be lower in priority than the "width" of the corridor.
Tom Adams, post: 393986, member: 7285 wrote: Good one Linebender. I apologize, I was talking about our "tangent" discussion about right-of-way monuments. I treat the original concrete monument with (or nearly with) the same dignity as other original monuments, but many surveyors feel that they are assumed to be lower in priority than the "width" of the corridor.
Yes, unfortunately too many take that untenable position. It is due, I imagine, to the principle of giving public streets, alleys, etc., their full width when proportioning. Far too many forget the last two words and have interpreted it as being applicable in all situations. Once again, proportioning is a LAST resort.
It is really kind of sad that, as a profession, we are far more comfortable with the math, measurements, and the "record", than we are with retracement principles and applicable boundary law.
Brian Allen, post: 393995, member: 1333 wrote: Yes, unfortunately too many take that untenable position. It is due, I imagine, to the principle of giving public streets, alleys, etc., their full width when proportioning. Far too many forget the last two words and have interpreted it as being applicable in all situations. Once again, proportioning is a LAST resort.
It is really kind of sad that, as a profession, we are far more comfortable with the math, measurements, and the "record", than we are with retracement principles and applicable boundary law.
Had a nice highway job that went through an urban setting, old subdivisions and the road was changed to state highway many decades ago. There was no intersection along that highway that ended up being 90.00' wide. All of the blocks had good evidence of where they are. 90' as shown as record on the plats yes, but 90.00' not so much. Can't remember who it was but there was a discussion about giving the KING his 90.00 feet.
Brian Allen, post: 393995, member: 1333 wrote: Yes, unfortunately too many take that untenable position. It is due, I imagine, to the principle of giving public streets, alleys, etc., their full width when proportioning. Far too many forget the last two words and have interpreted it as being applicable in all situations. Once again, proportioning is a LAST resort.
It is really kind of sad that, as a profession, we are far more comfortable with the math, measurements, and the "record", than we are with retracement principles and applicable boundary law.
You seem to be on quite a high-horse with all of this (literally). I haven't seen anyone on this forum advocating that original monuments should be called off, or that we shouldn't make every attempt to hold non-original monuments if possible. From my experience in Ca, we have had "funky" surveying work going on for generations! I don't know that today's surveyors are any less skilled in utilizing proper retracement principle and applying the appropriate boundary law principles. Proper analysis includes evaluating the the entire picture including the record "measurements" and all other forms of evidence recovered. I agree, as i'm guessing most all here would, that proportioning is a last resort, and if done, should really be based on original monumentation.
Interesting discussion.
My outfit frequently does R/W retracements for our company's state DOT work. Our practice has been as follows:
1. Collect evidence to develop an equitable centerline
2. Offset the record centerline distance per deed or easement, which typically references the plans.
3. Found R/W monuments are used to control R/W breaks
4. Found monuments that are within 0.3' are considered occupying the "true" point.
5. If it's 0.3'-2', we won't set one, but will show a calculated point with a bearing and distance from the remaining R/W monument.
6. If it's greater than 2', we'll set a new one.
I include a note on the plat stating the approach I use. I came up with the 0.3 and 2.0 ft. thresholds, but there's nothing sacred about them. I figure most surveyors are just as lost and confused as me and will be grateful that I wrestled with the evidence and state how I handled it.
I understand the views presented by Bryan, et al., and grant that they've got a solid argument, one I'd even consider applying if the nature of my employment changed. But I'm a pragmatist above all else, and if the state's position is that the deed controls, they get deeded width, and they're paying me, and they're willing to fight for their position... Well, I'm not going to disagree with them just for the sake of seizing the Survey High Ground.
Said Lot, post: 394035, member: 1296 wrote: Interesting discussion.
My outfit frequently does R/W retracements for our company's state DOT work. Our practice has been as follows:
1. Collect evidence to develop an equitable centerline
2. Offset the record centerline distance per deed or easement, which typically references the plans.
3. Found R/W monuments are used to control R/W breaks
4. Found monuments that are within 0.3' are considered occupying the "true" point.
5. If it's 0.3'-2', we won't set one, but will show a calculated point with a bearing and distance from the remaining R/W monument.
6. If it's greater than 2', we'll set a new one.I include a note on the plat stating the approach I use. I came up with the 0.3 and 2.0 ft. thresholds, but there's nothing sacred about them. I figure most surveyors are just as lost and confused as me and will be grateful that I wrestled with the evidence and state how I handled it.
I understand the views presented by Bryan, et al., and grant that they've got a solid argument, one I'd even consider applying if the nature of my employment changed. But I'm a pragmatist above all else, and if the state's position is that the deed controls, they get deeded width, and they're paying me, and they're willing to fight for their position... Well, I'm not going to disagree with them just for the sake of seizing the Survey High Ground.
Which State are you in?
Dave Karoly, post: 393940, member: 94 wrote: And 426:
MightyMoe, post: 394007, member: 700 wrote: Had a nice highway job that went through an urban setting, old subdivisions and the road was changed to state highway many decades ago. There was no intersection along that highway that ended up being 90.00' wide. All of the blocks had good evidence of where they are. 90' as shown as record on the plats yes, but 90.00' not so much. Can't remember who it was but there was a discussion about giving the KING his 90.00 feet.
If a local road goes through a subdivision, it is probably a "right of way" without fee ownership. In that case, it would be a 90' right of way held as an easement. If it changed to State jurisdiction by action of a quitclaim or a governmental agreement, it would still be held as a 90 easement and the adjoiners would still have fee ownership to the centerline of the road (if they did prior to the upgrade to highway). Generally, to my knowledge, the States and Federal Governments want to own fee-simple on highways. If they did any widening in that area they would more than likely try to get the new width as well as what was owned to the centerline in fee-simple ownership. (Just some comments with a lot of "ifs" and "probably's".)
I've never seen a NYSDOT highway taking that called for any sort of monumentation on the taking line. Not in the description. Not on the map.
It's brg & dist to a point at a sta. & offset, brg & dist to a point at sta. & offset, ad nauseum. Sta. & offset can be from centerline improvement, or from survey baseline.
The only way to reproduce the taking line is to reproduce the appropriate centerline or baseline, as the case may be. Various methods have been mentioned above.
So, hold those tri-corner concrete markers at your peril! Some of them fit really well, others, feh...not so much. At some point, I think in the 90's, DOT went to prick-punched aluminum caps on rebars, which fit better - much better, in fact - but they're still NOT CALLED FOR.
I don't know how all States handle it, but a general rule of thumb in a "taking" the limits of the parcel needing to be taken are determined prior to the acquisition taking place. To go on to the private property and set monuments at the proposed right-of-way limit would include trespass, and if a revision changed the boundary limits, the first set of monuments would need to be pulled and the new corners set.
So, it is the method around hear to write the description of what is desired to be acquired and monument the new right-of-way limits after acquisition. I don't think it would make sense to call to boundary monuments before a boundary is created.
A lot of guys do hold that the description preceded the monuments so the description bearings and distances hold over the monuments. I tend to disagree. I tend to look at all of the calls on a description, as well as field evidence, equally to find possible anomalies.
(and, by the way, I've seen a lot of property descriptions that don't call to monuments as well. That doesn't mean I don't give found monuments a lot of weight.)
Said Lot, post: 394035, member: 1296 wrote: Interesting discussion.
My outfit frequently does R/W retracements for our company's state DOT work. Our practice has been as follows:
1. Collect evidence to develop an equitable centerline
2. Offset the record centerline distance per deed or easement, which typically references the plans.
3. Found R/W monuments are used to control R/W breaks
4. Found monuments that are within 0.3' are considered occupying the "true" point.
5. If it's 0.3'-2', we won't set one, but will show a calculated point with a bearing and distance from the remaining R/W monument.
6. If it's greater than 2', we'll set a new one.I include a note on the plat stating the approach I use. I came up with the 0.3 and 2.0 ft. thresholds, but there's nothing sacred about them. I figure most surveyors are just as lost and confused as me and will be grateful that I wrestled with the evidence and state how I handled it.
I understand the views presented by Bryan, et al., and grant that they've got a solid argument, one I'd even consider applying if the nature of my employment changed. But I'm a pragmatist above all else, and if the state's position is that the deed controls, they get deeded width, and they're paying me, and they're willing to fight for their position... Well, I'm not going to disagree with them just for the sake of seizing the Survey High Ground.
Item 5 is exactly what the original post referred to when I asked if this was common practice for some. I understand why some do it but I think it is not in the best interests of the profession or the client and certainly not best for the adjoiners which may never see the explanation on the plat. Most observers will assume the monument represents the boundary. I am not even sure what a surveyor is telling me in regards to the boundary location with a note to a found monument not in the 'true" position.
Item 4 is subject for another post.
Sergeant Schultz, post: 394045, member: 315 wrote: I've never seen a NYSDOT highway taking that called for any sort of monumentation on the taking line. Not in the description. Not on the map.
It's brg & dist to a point at a sta. & offset, brg & dist to a point at sta. & offset, ad nauseum. Sta. & offset can be from centerline improvement, or from survey baseline.
The only way to reproduce the taking line is to reproduce the appropriate centerline or baseline, as the case may be. Various methods have been mentioned above.
So, hold those tri-corner concrete markers at your peril! Some of them fit really well, others, feh...not so much. At some point, I think in the 90's, DOT went to prick-punched aluminum caps on rebars, which fit better - much better, in fact - but they're still NOT CALLED FOR.
I personally believe that a lot of Surveyors have been mis-taught about a certain rule of construction which applies to disputes over exactly what a Deed conveys. This does not mean un-called for monuments don't control; it means they control under a different set of rules. Remember, the parties can modify their agreement in parol after the Deed is delivered as long as they are not moving an established line which they know exists. Lines solely described on paper are not established yet. If the monuments were established by one of the parties (the DOT) and recognized by the other party (the private owner) with the intention of marking the lines per the Deed in question then they control although years later the DOT decides it does not like its own sloppy procedures in setting them.
Monuments should be rejected for good reasons, not mere measurements but actual reasons such as they were set to mark a different line.
Field topo of a proposed highway reconstruction would almost certainly also involve trespass, yet it's done all the time, even before NY's ROE law was passed.
How many subdivision plans showing "set iron stakes" at the corners get filed before the "iron stakes" get set?
My point is, you can hold 'em if you want to, but here in NY, it's all about the baseline/centerline. I remember hearing of one poor SOB who held the concrete markers and had to buy a large piece of asphalt parking lot & associated $hit.
roger_LS, post: 394024, member: 11550 wrote: You seem to be on quite a high-horse with all of this (literally). I haven't seen anyone on this forum advocating that original monuments should be called off, or that we shouldn't make every attempt to hold non-original monuments if possible.
Roger, a lot of surveyors, including on this thread, advocate that the if the DOT buys a 200.00' right of way, the get exactly 200', no more, no less. That comment has been made several times. I believe that is what NYS legal counsel is saying as well.
If I'm not mistaken, that means to them that if two concrete Right-of-Way monuments are 200.72 feet apart, then those monuments do not depict the exact right-of-way limits. I think that is what Brian is arguing about.
Sergeant Schultz, post: 394056, member: 315 wrote: Field topo of a proposed highway reconstruction would almost certainly also involve trespass, yet it's done all the time, even before NY's ROE law was passed.
How many subdivision plans showing "set iron stakes" at the corners get filed before the "iron stakes" get set?
My point is, you can hold 'em if you want to, but here in NY, it's all about the baseline/centerline. I remember hearing of one poor SOB who held the concrete markers and had to buy a large piece of asphalt parking lot & associated $hit.
Field topo on private land IS trespass around here. We ALWAYS get permission to enter. If NYState law allows for surveyors to be able to access private land for topo purposes, then they can do that. Also, if they allow surveyors to access private land to set boundary monuments before they become boundary, then more power to them. The fact is they are not boundary until the acquisition is complete.
