So part of a survey I am working on backs up to old Block 27 Lots 1-14 as shown on this old 1909 filed map. To me the bearings on the roads and rear line of the lots are 90å¡ from each other. S 24å¡ 09' E and S 65å¡ 51' W. The last guy used the S 25å¡ E bearing from that survey line and its messing everything up. The little tree area on the map is what I am working on which consists of 4 lots, two of which are part of a filed minor subdivision. I am also surveying old block 27 lots 1-14 and half of that boulevard which has been vacated (hence I have to extend the survey 25' to the cl).
It's all screwed up because of people using that wrong angle, but I actually went way back into the woods (these are all paper streets and undeveloped land except the four lots on the curved road I am working on) and found right of way monuments from the old 1909 plat that work remarkably well.....almost comically well. The 50' rights of way using the few pairs of monuments I found measure anywhere from 49.98' to 50.01' and the distances down the road that are supposed to be 250.00' are a whopping 250.01'. AND the 90å¡ geometry works with said mons.
The problems arise when tying into the newer subdivisions: everything is out of square with those rights of way by as much as 2-3 feet once you extend the lines out. How do I clean this up??? I am just going to document and show the discrepancies to the several pieces of control on the more modern stuff and draw the out bound where I know it really goes. The title company is gonna love me for this one.....
Also, the deeds don't really call to the adjoiners, so I have to show a gap rather than the distance I actually measured to the adjoining line (block 27 line).
1909 Filed Map:
Current Tax Map
I would say it's definitely 90 degrees 24-09 and 65-51. The prolongation to the right showing 65-51 along the bottom line of the lots and the 24-09 of the street. The N45E looks to be that dotted in line which seems to be some other boundary, maybe a municipality line. Or maybe those circles are monuments as the dotted line seems to connect circle to circle. the lots along the top are def 90 as drawn based on the lot dimensions and with the 65-51 on the right side it all makes sense to me. So I guess I see it the same way as you.
Some speedy guy prolly grabbed the plat, saw N45E and ran with it. Prolly did his whole job wondering why the road wasn't platted as a parallel
Rich., post: 359288, member: 10450 wrote: I would say it's definitely 90 degrees 24-09 and 65-51. The prolongation to the right showing 65-51 along the bottom line of the lots and the 24-09 of the street. The N45E looks to be that dotted in line which seems to be some other boundary, maybe a municipality line. Or maybe those circles are monuments as the dotted line seems to connect circle to circle. the lots along the top are def 90 as drawn based on the lot dimensions and with the 65-51 on the right side it all makes sense to me. So I guess I see it the same way as you.
Some speedy guy prolly grabbed the plat, saw N45E and ran with it. Prolly did his whole job wondering why the road wasn't platted as a parallel
Exactly man. The monuments (which are not actually shown on the old plat, but are from that vintage) worked perfectly and clearly show it's 90. It's just a shame there's now a gap between the two modern subdivisions and the old one. I'll clean it up because I'm getting paid to do the survey of all this stuff and do a major subdivision to rearrange the lot geometry. However, I'm not doing quite as well as I planned because this sloppiness has wasted a little bit of my time.
Dan Patterson, post: 359293, member: 1179 wrote: Exactly man. The monuments (which are not actually shown on the old plat, but are from that vintage) worked perfectly and clearly show it's 90. It's just a shame there's now a gap between the two modern subdivisions and the old one. I'll clean it up because I'm getting paid to do the survey of all this stuff and do a major subdivision to rearrange the lot geometry. However, I'm not doing quite as well as I planned because this sloppiness has wasted a little bit of my time.
. This is where the fun comes into our professional lives.
I believe that you've correctly identified the source and the effect of the error by the previous surveyor. As to how you deal with it, you need to ask yourself "Does the fact that they neglected to mention the adjoiner mean that they intended to leave a small, useless sliver of a gap?"
Don't fall into the trap of treating a rule of construction, which is meant to be invoked only to resolve discrepancies that evidence of the circumstances at hand can't answer, as an unbendable rule of required application. If application of the rule creates silly results, such as the small useless (and obviously unintended) sliver, then the rule is not applicable to your circumstances.
If a "gap" was created by a map-reading mistake by the last surveyor, don't compound it. There was intended to be one boundary, with title on each side of it fully disposed of. You should show the boundary being on the original line that it was intended to be on, but also show the mistakenly mapped line of the previous survey as a mistake. This is all assuming that there has been nothing to physically establish the incorrect line on the ground with subsequent acts of acceptance by the landowners. But unless there are two clearly identifiable established lines on the ground, there is no gap.
eapls2708, post: 359314, member: 589 wrote: I believe that you've correctly identified the source and the effect of the error by the previous surveyor. As to how you deal with it, you need to ask yourself "Does the fact that they neglected to mention the adjoiner mean that they intended to leave a small, useless sliver of a gap?"
Don't fall into the trap of treating a rule of construction, which is meant to be invoked only to resolve discrepancies that evidence of the circumstances at hand can't answer, as an unbendable rule of required application. If application of the rule creates silly results, such as the small useless (and obviously unintended) sliver, then the rule is not applicable to your circumstances.
If a "gap" was created by a map-reading mistake by the last surveyor, don't compound it. There was intended to be one boundary, with title on each side of it fully disposed of. You should show the boundary being on the original line that it was intended to be on, but also show the mistakenly mapped line of the previous survey as a mistake. This is all assuming that there has been nothing to physically establish the incorrect line on the ground with subsequent acts of acceptance by the landowners. But unless there are two clearly identifiable established lines on the ground, there is no gap.
I see what you mean, but those erroneous lines have been filed. That's a big deal around here, because most things do not get recorded (usually only major subdivision plats - in this case a minor which happens occasionally but rarely). If it were a different survey I may be inclined to eliminate the gap, but I don't have a clear record that the intent was to meet the other line. This may actually not matter that much.....
The one way that I am fortunate in this particular case, is that I am preparing the survey for an existing conditions plan as part of a major subdivision package. I dimensioned the gap, but when I prepare a new plat to be recorded the gap will be eliminated and new descriptions will be created and filed for each lot.
*EDIT: I should add that the erroneous line has been monumented while only the R/W lines and not the back line were monumented in the original work.
Dan Patterson, post: 359330, member: 1179 wrote: I see what you mean, but those erroneous lines have been filed. That's a big deal around here, because most things do not get recorded (usually only major subdivision plats - in this case a minor which happens occasionally but rarely). If it were a different survey I may be inclined to eliminate the gap, but I don't have a clear record that the intent was to meet the other line. This may actually not matter that much.....
The one way that I am fortunate in this particular case, is that I am preparing the survey for an existing conditions plan as part of a major subdivision package. I dimensioned the gap, but when I prepare a new plat to be recorded the gap will be eliminated and new descriptions will be created and filed for each lot.
*EDIT: I should add that the erroneous line has been monumented while only the R/W lines and not the back line were monumented in the original work.
I would flip that around. If you don't have clear intent to reserve a sliver, there isn't one...
Intent is the clear objective.
When the boundaries of the two separate properties was located, were they working along the same boundary.
The filing of the subdivision drawing does not mean there was no error made.
Was any area reserved or does the description contain all of the property that joins the common boundary?
Without any specific proof of a reservation for a strip of land, I can not agree with there being a gap.
In the past, it was declared illegal to purposely create a narrow strip of land to control or block the needs of the public.
There must be some record of adjoining property owners.
0.02
I've already adjusted the distances on tax lot 4.01 to accommodate the discrepancy.
Maybe you guys have swayed me. I can extend the lines of tax lots 8-10 through the pins in the back until they hit lot 3. I have no aversion to showing different distances from those recorded, but this time it's going to be quite a few. All those lengths in the back (which match the deed calls) will change and so will the side lines. At least the lots are getting bigger instead of smaller, and I'll be getting rid of the obvious blunder which resulted in a gap.
The S 25å¡E is a tract line, just as Lot I across the street is irregular because of the tract line, see current tax map.
Second Avenue was intended to be 50' wide and at a 90å¡. The West half was vacated so that line follows the center line at 24-09.
Lot 10 follows the tract line and if there is no deed conveying the East half of Second Avenue to Lot 10, your gore is 25'+ the sliver. If the East half of Second Avenue were abandoned it would not necessarily revert to Lot 10. You need to read Ordinance 2013-35 to understand what was abandoned and possibly to whom.
If the Last Surveyor was doing the Lots 8-10 subdivision he may have been surveying exactly what he was supposed to.
Paul in PA
I do agree about the tract line. However, the deed for 10 calls along second ave. The problem sliver I have is the "common" line of lot 3 with 4.01, 8, 9, & 10. That's where the 90å¡ got blown.
Oh I see. So the less than 90 now brings ur lots down from lot 3 when u hold lot 10 to 2nd St.
Depending on what the lots look like as lay on the ground I might also hold the common line and just extend lot 10 to 2nd St. But I don't think this could be deciphered until that evidence is collected.
Also what the deeds of lots 8-10 say for the common line. Do they say along lots 1-14?
Dan Patterson, post: 359373, member: 1179 wrote: I do agree about the tract line. However, the deed for 10 calls along second ave. The problem sliver I have is the "common" line of lot 3 with 4.01, 8, 9, & 10. That's where the 90å¡ got blown.
Clearly that line should be S65å¡51'W.
For a 9 minute error to be 2-3' you are extending 1000'?
Lot 10 cannot go to Second Avenue unless it somehow acquired title. That could be the case if Second Avenue were actually in use. In my opinion the original developer still has title to Second Avenue and the sliver.
What does Ordinance 2013-35 say?
I do not think you have enough evidence to call it an obvious blunder.
Paul in PA
You found that that S 25å¡ E bearing along the street was inserted in error. That should be enough evidence that if the minor subdivision was done correctly, there wouldn't be a gap and the intent was to join Block 27. But once lots are established, they are unalterable. The surveyor of the minor subdivision failed to subdivide all of the property and if he monumented those lots based on that error, a gap will remain.
Paul in PA, post: 359385, member: 236 wrote: Clearly that line should be S65å¡51'W.
For a 9 minute error to be 2-3' you are extending 1000'?
Lot 10 cannot go to Second Avenue unless it somehow acquired title. That could be the case if Second Avenue were actually in use. In my opinion the original developer still has title to Second Avenue and the sliver.
What does Ordinance 2013-35 say?
I do not think you have enough evidence to call it an obvious blunder.
Paul in PA
Not quite that far, but the newer monument I found near the end of that prolongation of the erroneous angle was off that much (2'+).
The ordinance is extremely general "... Releasing, Extinguishing and Vacating the Rights of the Public of
Portions of Paper Streets known as First Avenue, Second Avenue, Third
Avenue, Sage Street, Sycamore Street, Cedar Drive, Carnegie Boulevard,
Hammond Avenue, Astor Avenue, Myrtle Avenue, and Lafayette Boulevard..."
Rich., post: 359377, member: 10450 wrote: Oh I see. So the less than 90 now brings ur lots down from lot 3 when u hold lot 10 to 2nd St.
Depending on what the lots look like as lay on the ground I might also hold the common line and just extend lot 10 to 2nd St. But I don't think this could be deciphered until that evidence is collected.
Also what the deeds of lots 8-10 say for the common line. Do they say along lots 1-14?
nope....to a point, to a point, to a point point point........man I hate those
Dan Patterson, post: 359402, member: 1179 wrote: Not quite that far, but the newer monument I found near the end of that prolongation of the erroneous angle was off that much (2'+).
The ordinance is extremely general "... Releasing, Extinguishing and Vacating the Rights of the Public of
Portions of Paper Streets known as First Avenue, Second Avenue, Third
Avenue, Sage Street, Sycamore Street, Cedar Drive, Carnegie Boulevard,
Hammond Avenue, Astor Avenue, Myrtle Avenue, and Lafayette Boulevard..."
Clearly by the Tax Map Second Avenue was not vacated in it's entirety.
By the ordinance language one has to assume that 1/2 of Second Avenue was vacated back to the original developer, absent any transfer to Lot 10. By location of the notation the Tax Map preparer appears unsure if that portion was vacated.
Paul in PA
Lafayette Boulevard was intended to be set 100' northwesterly of the tract line labeled S 65å¡51'W. So unless there is any older evidence along the tract line, the street line is probably the best evidence to relocate that portion of the original tract line.
Unless you can show some reason of intent to leave a gore, I would say the original tract line is the boundary line between lot 3 and Lots 4.01, 8, 9 & 10.
I agree with Paul in PA the S 25å¡E line is probably the tract line and the S 24å¡09'E line is the sideline of Second Avenue. The intent was to make Lafayette and Second 90å¡ to each other. This left a triangular parcel on the north sideline of Second Avenue. Not an uncommon practice in 1909 as it was common for developers to leave reserved strips along side marginal roads. The theory being if the adjoining landowner wanted access to the road they would have to purchase the strip, thus allowing the developer to recoup the cost of improving the full width of the roadway.
Unless lot 10 acquired title to the triangular parcel it has no right to the vacated portion of Second Avenue.
[INDENT=1]No presumption runs in favor of the plaintiffs by reason of their ownership of the land to the south of the street for the reason that the street land does not come within their chain of title. The street was laid out as a marginal road on and along the southern extremity of the lands of the Edward B. Morris Realty Company. The weight of authority holds that in such a circumstance when a description like the one now before us is found in a deed from the dedicator of the street and owner of the subsoil and of the land adjoining on one side, the presumption is that the intention was to invest the grantee with all property rights in the full width of the highway. Wolff v. Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 4715, 74 A. 2d 253
- NJ: Supreme Court 1950[/INDENT]
With respect to the road reverting back to lot 10 so far all I have to go by is this from lot 10's deed:
"....to a concrete monument at the northerly terminus of the westerly sideline of Second Avenue; thence
South 22 degrees 34 minutes 00 seconds East and running along the westerly sideline of Second Avenue, a distance of 199.32 feet to an Old Stone found....."
I looked for but could not find the stone. While it is a paper road, it had been excavated and the sides of the R/W piled high with the material from the roadway many years ago. The monument in that deed would be in what is presently a driveway for the house on Lot 10, so occupation, and this deed call point to 10 owning the vacated portion of the R/W in my opinion.
Lot 10 may be using right of way and have rights of use, but since it had no original underlying fee the right of way does not revert to Lot 10. The call to the sideline is just that a call, so you might argue that lot 10 may include the slim wedge, it does not however include the roadway.
I just noticed an error on the 1909 map, that S25å¡E 139.xx should be 199.xx.
Paul in PA
