Here is a subdivision from 1966. My client wants a survey and map of his property, shown as lot 20 (30,000 square feet). The numbers that are circled are the proposed street numbers.
I have been struggling with the geometry of this subdivision for days. The only way I can see this working is by trial and error, assumptions about the missing information, and graphical fit or scaling the image file with the computer.
How this subdivision got approved is beyond my understanding.
How this surveyor passed this incomplete plan, knowing what problems would arise is unprofessional.
Here are some hints about what is wrong. 1.) There is only one bearing on the subdivision. 2.) The side line distance on the east side of the road adds to 359 feet while those on the west add to 349 feet. 3.) The frontage distance on the lot I am surveying comprises two curves, but the subdivision shows only the total distance. 4.) There is a another curve in the cul-de-sac with data on the length or radius. 5.) There is a tangent on the south side of the cul-de-sac with no course or distance given.
?ÿ
The info on the plat is enough to start a monument search.?ÿ IF you find some that cuts down the amount of assumption and guesswork needed.
I apologize in advance for the obvious question, but here we go anyway: ?¨ Are there no other more definitive subdivisions or other land records abutting the boundary of this subdivision?
@bill93?ÿ
Yes, I am planning to do some reconnaissance today. There are four monuments (stone bounds) shown on the subdivision. Finding them will be key.
I work with stuff worse than that.
Get out there, Resurvey the perimeter, and ALL occupation, tie all fence corners, monuments. Tie all improvements, that are in proximity of any deed lines.?ÿ All road centerline, etc.
More office time is a waste of time. At this time.
This is like reconstruction of the community. Without a plan.
If you are not comfortable doing this, go discuss this with some older practical surveyors. You are being too nerdy.
You need practical help, in pure pragmatism.
You can even call me if you want.
It's a different way of thinking, but is a part of surveying.
N
@cv?ÿ
The same surveyor made a subdivision at the intersecting road, however, he changed the geometry of the intersection and the two lots on either side.?ÿ
There is a typographical error in my original post. The side line distances add to 350 and 349 respectively. I typed 359 in the original post.
Vor Engineering side, iss interfering wid yer practical side. Et is a common problum.
Park you internal injuneer, at the coffee shop, an let me take you to the other side!
N
I agree. After some reconnaissance. I will be surveying to tie in any evidence found. If there are assumptions needed to complete the work, they will be noted on the map I publish.
Good luck.?ÿ I'm guessing that none of the lot corners were ever set, and maybe none of the road monuments either.?ÿ Everything supposedly tied to those stone bounds you mentioned
First thing I look at is if I??m going to make a profit on the survey. By the looks of things here I??d suggest that you suggest he use another Surveyor. ?????ÿ
That map looks like what we would call a Tentative Map.
A pet peeve.?ÿ Why is NORTH not at the top of the drawing??ÿ ARGH!!!!!!!?ÿ Some of us live in a world where the Sun comes up in the East and sets in the West and we can tell where half way in between falls.
A pet peeve.?ÿ Why is NORTH not at the top of the drawing??ÿ ARGH!!!!!!!?ÿ Some of us live in a world where the Sun comes up in the East and sets in the West and we can tell where half way in between falls.
Amen
