Strret monuments vs. original monuments

[sako]

A property which is a corner lot on a 4 lot subdivision needs to be surveyed for purpose of a two lot subdivision. Let’s say St. “Aâ€￾ is the main St. and St. “Bâ€￾ is where all 4 lots have frontage to. The original surveyor has used monuments on CL of “Aâ€￾ St. for his BOB. Only one of the 3 monuments on this St. as shown on his map was IP in Mon. box at the time of survey. The other 2 were empty box with cross ties. He used ties to locate monuments. Four years later County Surveyor files a ROS which shows the monuments on CL of “Aâ€￾ St.
The County Surveyor held 2 monuments on CL of “Aâ€￾ St. 4400 Ft. apart and sets IP’s in all empty monuments based on the cross ties (8 total) and noted the offset to CL (varying from 0.06’ to 0.30’ southerly of CL).
He also finds 2 IP’s of the corner lot adjacent to the “Aâ€￾ St. which were set by the orig. Surveyor. The ROS shows that these IP’s are 0.23’ and 0.25’ south of where they supposed to be.
By a recent survey 4 IP’s from the orig. survey are found, 2 on “Aâ€￾ (same ones shown on the ROS filed by the CS) and 2 on “Bâ€￾ St., all have same character as shown on the orig. survey map (although tags are missing).
The dimensions between found IP’s all match with those of the orig. map.
Here is my take on this case:
I could use the 4 original IP’s to retrace the corner lot, but by doing so I go into ROW by 3 inches (considering the CL shown on the ROS by CS).
Since “Original monuments set to mark the boundary lines of a subdivision will yield to senior rights in the event of an overlapâ€￾(Brown 4th edition, 12.15, page 308), and in this case the northerly ROW line is the senior line, the owner of the PIQ has title only to the ROW line. The southwesterly and southeasterly corners of the PIQ should be set 0.23’ and 0.25’ northerly of found orig. IP’s.
Regarding the northerly line of PIQ, since the dimensions between found orig. IP’s are same as the record, no proration is needed on the easterly line of the orig. subdivision. The northerly line of PIQ will be same as shown on the orig. ROS.
I would love to hear your opinions.

[VANCE]

section 12.25 of B.C.L.P. should give you some help, (or more questions) I hope

[goodgps]

Sako,

It appears that the County Surveyor went far beyond the "Block" breakdown that he/she maybe should have. Was a thorough search for monumenation, that SUPPORTED the empty centerline boxes performed ?

Did the County Surveyor "walk" the entire centerline to look for nails that may support the block breakdown.

To give a correct opinion, much more information is required. It is stated that the county surveyor set monuments based upon the cross ties, yet he also finds the cross ties to be in conflict ?

Are retracement Surveyors pipes simply mis-set? or do they comply with the empty Monument wells ? Why were the wells not "filled" by Surveyor A?

It looks like I have more questions than you do. . .
I "Don" Know

[btaylor]

I am not sure why the two are being held. Are the two being held senior, and the internal mons were supposed to be set between those two originally? Or are the two being held merely the two furthest, being held out of convenience?

I do not like the looks of the corner record, and lean towards making the street have small jogs. This "looks" ugly, but likely more in the spirit of how things were originally surveyed. This is often an internal debate with myself, and also a debate I have with others - the desire to make the geometry "pretty" at the expense of the monument locations.

[sako]

Bryan,
Street "A" was supposed to be a line without angle points. CS used a Vault Map that shows the "A" St. with monuments at each terminus point.
Good,
Why CS didn't set IP's right on CL? That's what I'm trying to find out by searching field notes, if I can find them.

[btaylor]

So just so I understand, it appears that the original surveyor used 3 street monuments/straddlers for his centerline, but does not appear to use the most easterly monument (assuming A St. in E-W line). This most easterly monument is used by the CS. I am intrigued by the fact that you have this 0.3' discrepancy on the straight centerline where you are working. Are all these monuments intervisible, and are the westernmost and easternmost monumuments of clear pedigree?

[PLS7393]

Hey, those maps look familiar. I have a few similar issues in my current jurisdicition, oh wait, those might be in my jurisdiction . . . thankfully filed before I started here, lol.

Have you discussed this with your County Surveyors Office?

Unfortunately sometimes the field crew was not instructed to search for existing, original, property corners. When I perform street right of way surveys, I want to hold found property corners, especially old, original ones.

Sometimes from your survey you just have to call out an error in a filed map, no matter who prepared it.

[E_Page]

iF YOU TAKE THE EASTERLY MON HELD BY cs OUT OF THE PICTURE, THERE MAY EVEN BE A REASONABLY STRAIGHT LINE. sEE THE PATTERN?

aNYWAY, THE cs SURVEY LOOKS SUSPECT TO ME.

(Oops, sorry for the CAD case.)

[btaylor]

eVaN that was what I was getting at as well. It looks dubious when you see something like this, especially if they are intervisible.

[goodgps]

I agree with BT,

the centerline "may" have jogs it it because it was originally monumented that way.

0.3' will still fit on a 4x4 if a "best-fit" line was used also.

It may be best, however, NOT to include little angle points like a couple of hundreths-per-monument.

From the discussion, I'd be inclined to hold Surveyor A and not Our "finest" County Surveyor in this instance.
I still question why Surveyor A did not place monuments inside the empty wells he was using. This drives me crazy. BUTTTT I did the very same thing about 20 years ago. Dang near got lynched by the local holy survey vigilante group. EVEN so, the positions are referenced nicely by straddler ties


Good ;^)

[sako]

Keith, the property is located in Santa Clara County, not in SMC.

After my visit to SCC office today, I found confusion about the location of the CL of "A"" St. in the field book.
First it shows that the "A" St. CL has an angle at the intersection with "B" St.
It shows there are IP's found at that intersection, and 2 other intersections westerly of "B" St., also found are 4 empty monument boxes between the angle point and the easterly terminus of "A" St.
Then, two pages where some unfinished notes are VOIDED.
On the page after, it's shown that "A" St. is a straight line, and some inconsistency between found vs. set IP's. The dates of these notes are one month before the recordation date of ROS by CS.

If I would draw a line between 3 monuments used by the orig. Surveyor, found orig. IP's are in harmony with that line. Unfortunately 2 of those 3 monuments are gone.

Altogether, I'm not sure anymore about reliance on ROS by CS.
Thank you guys, for the helpful comments.

[Ben Lund]

This is a great real world example of simultaneous conveyances. With my little experience, it seems that the location of the terminus of the original lines (whether blocks, lots, or street centerlines) are established by holding the original monuments. If there are no original monuments, then other evidence should be used.

So given that the FD IPs at the ROW (per the 2009 survey) are the original monuments called for in the original subdivision of the block, I would hold those for the lines defining the ROW. Checking the original ROW monument locations with the geometry of the found CL monuments is necessary to show they were set within a certain tolerance.

I’m not sure if this is applicable to the situation given but to summarize, if the block has all for corners identified by original monuments called for by the original subdivision, it’s not prudent to locate CL street monuments and then hold record ROW widths and thus blowing out all of the original ROW monumentation.

[PLS7393]

Sako,
I'm not picking on any county, and don't want them to think I am. I have my own issues with filed R.O.S. within my county, with the exact same situation.

I found out the some of the filed maps by our office were instructed to traverse through the monuments, and no property ties, but how did the monutments get set? I am cleaning up an old project as we speak (four page R.O.S.) where they didn't tie out existing original 1 1/2" I.P.'s. Needless to say, the monumented lines are not the actual centerline as intended, or good offset lines. Yes the R.O.S. will show the monument lines scewed to the actual centerline, but I have additional field work to perform first.

[btaylor]

I think then that the monuments are telling you there is, in fact, an angle point. It "should" be straight, but you have something like 4000 feet of length there.