Here is boogered up subdivision Lot I am doing. It is Lot 97. The 118.55 on the south line must have been calculated from S. Hamilton instead of from the SE corner of 97; giving the frontage distance 34.05 instead of 40.5. The distance scales at the 40.5 but the area was calculated using the 34.05. Also to top it off it appears that the lots, from 97 and west to the cul de sac, must have been laid out using the erroneous distance based on the house locations and setback requirements. There is no evidence of occupation along the line(s) between Lots 97 and 96, and there is no original pins to be found on any lots south of meadow lane. I found a couple boundary line agreement to remedy the discrepancies on Lots 93 and 94 (from other surveys holding the mapped lot lines). I am certain that I hold the line as the Lot was apparently laid out, using the 34.05. In that case I suppose I would be calling that the true Lot line OR I am wondering if this situation would best be resolved using a BLA.
How old is the subdivision?
my first thought is that a BLA would not move the Building Setback Lines... those would remain as platted.
Builders make mistakes doing layout, it is their problem. Where are they?
to truly Fix things I think you need to get the Local Agency involved... or walk away and leave things alone.
Peter Ehlert, post: 382256, member: 60 wrote: How old is the subdivision?
1969
It was difficult to get that map plotted with the closest conformity of dimensions. Once plotted to one frontage distance one sees how easily the other distance works.
I would say you have to survey and verify the centerpoint of the Meadow Lane cul-de-sac. I would also have to say you have to cross the street and verify Lot 82. It would also be prudent to locate Willow Lane and Lot 98.
Paul in PA
Wherever the lot lines were originally staked is where they are located. If the Plat indicates there are two possible locations for the lot lines then you have objective uncertainty and a boundary line agreement is appropriate.
The locations of the houses may be good evidence of the lot line locations unless they don't touch the setback lines.
If the best evidence is they staked it using 34.05' along the R/W then that is the original lot line location. I wouldn't call it an erroneous distance. There is a conflict between 34.05' on the north and 118.95' on the south, leave the error where it most likely occurred based on the physical evidence.
Under Wattle's majority probability theory, 34.05 matches the 10k+ area but the 118 distance matches neither, therefore 2 of 3 plus the physical evidence support the lot line location based on the majority of the evidence. Courts call this a preponderance and in Deed construction you can disregard that which doesn't fit.
The lines by physical evidence likely shows the the excess ends up in Lot 92 since the centerline distances along meadow lane fits the plat. The houses are tight on the 70' lots where the SBL's are within half a foot or less of the structures using the 34.05'.