California Surveyors Forums

Greetings

I have a client who has 4 large lots in a square formation. He is subdividing the 4 lots into a "many" lot subdivision. The large Lots were re-surveyed about 20 years ago and all monuments were set. (and recently found)
The center common point will fall under a sidewalk and be of no significance after the land is re-subdivided into housing Lots.

The question: Can the Public Agency require me to "tie out" that monument and reset it's position after the subdivision improvements are built ?
Or can this position of little consequence simply "go-away"

I show the monument on the Boundary sheet of the Subdivision map so its position is actually not lost.
Would the spirit of monument preservation be endangered by NOT resetting this position ?

Thank you

This is common when sectionalized land is subdivided into a high density residential neighborhood. Provided the position of the monument is shown in relation to the exterior boundary, it serves no purpose to have it reset. The subdivided lands are what now exist - the aliquot descriptions would no longer apply to the interior lots.

Just because people are doing it like that does not mean it is necessary or required.
I see the logic in requiring tie-outs and cornet records pre-construction. Set Good RPs out of the construction zone so any surveyor can recover the Position later.
Reset later? There is no logic to that at all, unless it is needed by a homeowner or maintenance workers.
Correct me if I am wrong, I don't believe there is any state law requiring resets, just a corner record after construction IF something is changed.

If the monument in question controls property lines outside of the new subdivision, it should be referenced and perpetuated after construction. Examples would be section corners, quarter corners and block corners. This eliminates the need to do dubious calculations from the new subdivision boundary in order to position the missing controlling monuments. If the destroyed monuments do not control any property lines outside of the new subdivision, the ties to the new subdivision would be sufficient. There would be no point in setting a new physical monument.

dharri wrote:If the monument in question controls property lines outside of the new subdivision, it should be referenced and perpetuated after construction. Examples would be section corners, quarter corners and block corners. This eliminates the need to do dubious calculations from the new subdivision boundary in order to position the missing controlling monuments. If the destroyed monuments do not control any property lines outside of the new subdivision, the ties to the new subdivision would be sufficient. There would be no point in setting a new physical monument.

You'd have to research every map ever recorded in the area to make sure the monument wasn't used to control some other subdivision. Seeing that this is impractical, ties to the old monument should be provided in case it ever needs to be retraced. With a new subdivision, there are usually plenty of new monuments being set. Any of which could be considered a tie.