Usually this scenario is very small, but occasionally due to a large deflection at the 1/4 corner, there are two points created where the Right-of-Way lines meet the quarter section line when the section line is offset to run parallel. This creates a small triangle where the extended ROW line from the west meets the ROW from the east across the 1/4 section line (Point A). There are two points (B and C) on the quarter section line where each ROW line intersects it. The 0.38' is a significant distance between B and C where two monuments should probably be set. This also creates an interesting situation when writing the legal description for the R-O-W line when passing across this line. Anyone run into this situation?
I run in to this problem quite often. And I haven't come up with a good solution.
On the one hand, the descriptions typically make it clear that the ROW line is X feet from the section line (center line). And if there is a property boundary at the 1/4 line (or other potential angle point in the centerline) then the ROW "jogs" when it is mapped out correctly.
On the other hand, if the ROW description just calls for an X foot ROW centered on the section line, then wherever the angle point in the ROW line falls is where it falls. And that may put the ROW angle point a significant distance before or after the 1/4 line.
Most of the time the deflection at the 1/4 corner is small enough that this becomes negligible. But in this case, as you've shown, 0.38' isn't something you can ignore. I'd say that it would probably depend on how the ROW is described on each side of the 1/4 line. If it was described separately, that 0.38' will probably have to be shown as a "jog" along the 1/4 line. If it was described as a continuous strip, then the ROW angle point might have to move off of the 1/4 line.
It depends. Do the take deeds call for the plans? Is it one owner both sides of the 1/4 line? How are the deeds written?
In the typical case the owners sell a specific width off the side of the section or 1/4 Section. That would indeed create two points on the 1/4 line. The specific answer here cannot be given without more information.
I would bei nterested in seeing the deeds that acquired the ROW. My feeling is that the line should stop at the angle point of the ROW east of the 1/4 line. One of thes 5' segments is not part of the description. Either the description goes north up the 1/4 line or it goes east of the 1/4 line and turns SE'ly. The answer is in the taking deeds with the granter on the east side of the 1/4 line.
J. Penry, post: 331687, member: 321 wrote: Usually this scenario is very small, but occasionally due to a large deflection at the 1/4 corner, there are two points created where the Right-of-Way lines meet the quarter section line when the section line is offset to run parallel. This creates a small triangle where the extended ROW line from the west meets the ROW from the east across the 1/4 section line (Point A). There are two points (B and C) on the quarter section line where each ROW line intersects it. The 0.38' is a significant distance between B and C where two monuments should probably be set. This also creates an interesting situation when writing the legal description for the R-O-W line when passing across this line. Anyone run into this situation?
No question there, it's clearly A
Was the ROW defined previously, or are you defining it for the first time?
IMO, if the ROW is defined by the offset of the section line, then I would just use point A, unless there is some specific instruction that tells you to use points B & C. Insofar as a legal description, if the 1/4 line needs to be called out, I would reference the 5.06' from the angle point, being careful in the wording that someone doesn't add the 5' to an overall dimension. Does the legal have to be a full metes and bounds or can it just state that the ROW is 50' offset from the South (assuming from the sketch) Section Line?
If you have to use the 1/4 line, then I would ignore point A and monument points B & C and the description would just follow the lines up to the 1/4 line then along it and away.
The situation involves the GIS department creating points and not being consistent with the way the ROW line points are being created. It also involves surveying when the landowners want the ROW line monumented after we take additional ROW. So far the consensus here seem to be placing monuments at A and C, but not at B.
J. Penry, post: 331687, member: 321 wrote: Usually this scenario is very small, but occasionally due to a large deflection at the 1/4 corner, there are two points created where the Right-of-Way lines meet the quarter section line when the section line is offset to run parallel. This creates a small triangle where the extended ROW line from the west meets the ROW from the east across the 1/4 section line (Point A). There are two points (B and C) on the quarter section line where each ROW line intersects it. The 0.38' is a significant distance between B and C where two monuments should probably be set. This also creates an interesting situation when writing the legal description for the R-O-W line when passing across this line. Anyone run into this situation?
A
J. Penry, post: 331704, member: 321 wrote: the consensus here seem to be placing monuments at A and C, but not at B.
:good: That fits my intuition.
Brown under "Overlaps and gaps" (2nd edition 7.13 Road Description Strip Conveyances) discusses the issue and says that the wording needs to be carefully crafted.
J. Penry, post: 331704, member: 321 wrote: The situation involves the GIS department creating points and not being consistent with the way the ROW line points are being created. It also involves surveying when the landowners want the ROW line monumented after we take additional ROW. So far the consensus here seem to be placing monuments at A and C, but not at B.
B doesn't fit, it's not 50 feet from the section line, setting a point on C would be what DOT would make us do, because it's a property corner.
I ran into a similar situation on a broke-back curve. The property line, on the outside of the curve, was perpendicular to the tangent; where is the PC of the curve, on the ROW?
This was in an old plat, built on a steep slope....
MightyMoe, post: 331709, member: 700 wrote: B doesn't fit, it's not 50 feet from the section line, setting a point on C would be what DOT would make us do, because it's a property corner.
I am about to throw a real kink into the discussion! :excruciating: As MightyMoe stated above point B is over 50 feet from the section line. If the ROW is clearly described as 50 feet on both sides of the section line point A is the end of the straight line to the west and point C is the end of the straight line to the east. Then by definition of both C and A being 50 feet from the 1/4 corner a 50 foot offset from the 1/4 corner is an arc with the 1/4 corner as the radius point. Although an extremely short curve is awkward this is defensible both mathematically and legally.
MightyMoe, post: 331709, member: 700 wrote: B doesn't fit, it's not 50 feet from the section line, setting a point on C would be what DOT would make us do, because it's a property corner.
I think your point is only valid if both sides of the 1/4 line were owned by one entity and the entire 50' strip thru both the 1/4s was conveyed in one deed. If 2 owners/ 2 deeds, the corners would go to A and then jog out to B- 50' and parallel.... [sarcasm]and you better put dimples on your caps :snarky: [/sarcasm]
Rankin_File, post: 331726, member: 101 wrote: I think your point is only valid if both sides of the 1/4 line were owned by one entity and the entire 50' strip thru both the 1/4s was conveyed in one deed. If 2 owners/ 2 deeds, the corners would go to A and then jog out to B- 50' and parallel.... [sarcasm]and you better put dimples on your caps :snarky: [/sarcasm]
I can't agree with that, cause B isn't 50' if the legal described 50' then it turns at A, it's just geometry, if you inverse to B it won't be 50' anywhere along the section line. If you consider it, how can there be a jog in a 50' offset line?:-S
MightyMoe, post: 331740, member: 700 wrote: I can't agree with that, cause B isn't 50' if the legal described 50' then it turns at A, it's just geometry, if you inverse to B it won't be 50' anywhere along the section line. If you consider it, how can there be a jog in a 50' offset line?:-S
Point C is on the 1/4 section line. Extending the ROW line from C to A will also inverse 50 feet from the section line only at points C and A. If the legal description is 50 feet that means at all points along the ROW and forces a short arc with line CA as a long chord.
I see a lot of answers that would be correct in some cases, not so much in others. There isn't an either / or that is correct for every case...
MightyMoe, post: 331740, member: 700 wrote: I can't agree with that, cause B isn't 50' if the legal described 50' then it turns at A, it's just geometry, if you inverse to B it won't be 50' anywhere along the section line. If you consider it, how can there be a jog in a 50' offset line?:-S
Because the grantor deeds a strip 50 feet wide along the section line to his boundary, not to the point it intersects a strip 50 feet wide granted by another owner.... what would you do if the owner to the west was graningt 50 feet and the owner to the east was granting 60 feet?
Rankin_File, post: 331752, member: 101 wrote: Because the grantor deeds a strip 50 feet wide along the section line to his boundary, not to the point it intersects a strip 50 feet wide granted by another owner.... what would you do if the owner to the west was graningt 50 feet and the owner to the east was granting 60 feet?
Dallas Morlan, post: 331741, member: 6020 wrote: Point C is on the 1/4 section line. Extending the ROW line from C to A will also inverse 50 feet from the section line only at points C and A. If the legal description is 50 feet that means at all points along the ROW and forces a short arc with line CA as a long chord.
You are correct, a tiny curve it formed
It's a perfect place for an 8"x10" Creosote corner post with braces centered on the right of way line in both directions. Then some anal-retentive surveyor can set two pk nails on the top of the post to ensure that there is no misunderstanding by the landowners which square inch is theirs.
😉
JBS
I think Mighty Moe is correct.
What did the parties intend? Did they intend to create a little triangle or a jog in a fifty strip? I doubt it, that doesn't make sense.
