First survey yesterday I went back to look for a likely lead capped pipe at the southwest corner of a former gas station. There were two (2) rebars there 2.2 feet apart and a record of survey matched the northerly one (the two corners on the east side were both lead caps, probably 70 years old). Sure enough, I got out the shovel and there was the lead cap down a foot, just 0.2' from the southerly rebar. The other two surveyors had not found it because there was a large metal sign post a foot away which made their metal detector sing (and they apparently didn't know about shovels).?ÿ
Next survey yesterday I went back to look for a monument at the northeast corner of a different site, also a former gas station. The fence posts made the metal detector sing so I got out the shovel and there was a lead cap down a foot - most likely 70 years old. But that wasn't the best part. A pup next door came over to the fence to say hi and she was the cutest little thing. That just made my day (I'm a big softie for animals).
?ÿ
Today we were digging up a bar that I had found 26 years ago in the middle of a county road.?ÿ The client is observing.?ÿ I told him a couple stories about how sometimes we find more than one object at a corner, usually caused by expert measurers plugging in some number they read somewhere.?ÿ Hear my helper say, "Take a look at this."?ÿ Peered into the hole to see the bar twelve inches deep and two 60d nails up about three inches from the top of the bar.?ÿ One on the north side and one on the west side.?ÿ So close, yet not the correct location.?ÿ Client had to take a look for himself.?ÿ He seemed impressed with our expertise.
I??ve had 3 very interesting boundary surveys this year.
1) a section which crosses the San Andreas fault with 2 section breakdowns. That resulted in a multi-page R/S with lengthy notes about why I did what I did.
2) a lease boundary described in 1940. The underlying property was partitioned in 1946. It took me several tries to find two of the five pipes set in 1940. Looked for the missing pipes several times and am sure they are gone. Another detailed and lengthy R/S.
3) working on an R/S??tracking down all the weird stuff the 1940s/50s County Surveyor did. Using old Division of Highways field notes to reestablish their C line. Fortunately their work was very accurate (3 tenths in 4 miles). Field is done, working on the map, 4 pages of record references.
What rebar??ÿ
Do you mean these loose laying on the ground someone pulled up rebar?
Just saying....
I got handed a project today for almost 2 miles of county-maintained greenbelt pathway that passes through 6 privately owned parcels.?ÿ Each parcel has an easement for the pathway but we topo'd the pathway and it weaves in and out of the easements throughout the length of the project.?ÿ It sounds like the county lawyer may want to address this.?ÿ There is also a separate easement for a pedestrian bridge in the middle of this this thing-- so the whole stretch is kind of a Frankenstein mess of easements.
Anyway, since the pathway is being re-aligned over this 2 miles, some of which lands in the current easements and some outside, my suggestion was to vacate all of the current easements and do fresh ones centered on the design alignment.
We'll see how the powers that be decide, but I'm really not a fan of compounding this Frankenstein mess in an attempt to address the encroachments.
The easement is where the path is, no matter what the recorded easements say.
@holy-cow ...only if the path has been in existence long enough to satisfy the requirements of adverse possession or prescription by acquiescence.
You understand well.
I would encourage the County to attempt to work with the landowners, without mentioning the survey issue, to acquire new easements.?ÿ In today's litigious world, the landowners need the added protection of having the County as being the primary party liable for incidents on this pathway.?ÿ In fact, as a landowner, I would prefer to sell that area to the County.
Not when the easements are only 5-10 years old.
There's some talk of wording new easements to say 'x feet left and right of the centerline wherever the path happens to lie' which sounds great to me.
I was just reading through one of the current easements and is worded along the lines of 'the 25 feet adjoining the top bank of the river.?ÿ If the bank erodes or accretes the easement adjusts to maintain 25 feet'.?ÿ Nice idea but unfortunately the path isn't going to get up and move on its own...
Why on Earth is the pathway being realigned if it's only been there such a short time??ÿ That is terrible planning or a ton of money fell out of the sky and they need to burn it up by a certain date.?ÿ Geez!
As a landowner, I would not want any liability associated with those using the pathway.?ÿ That would require something far more compelling than a mere easement.
There may some federal use it or lose money involved, yes.?ÿ The pedestrian bridge is positioned kind of weird and is being changed-- you make a 90 onto it from the path and a 90 off of it which isn't a problem for walking but I think it gives cyclists a hard time.?ÿ There are other things going on in the project that are the bigger fish like river bank stabilization, so the path stuff is just a convenient time to do it.
