Topic: Working with old plats

[Mark]

Just for fun! I've attached a .pdf of the plat if you want more info.

[mjfarrell]

I would work into them backwards ...and then probably make some wild ass umptions about tangency, and use the lines and curves comands to fir them in....let me see if I have time to play with them...

do you have a bearing on the East west lines, or are they just 'East'? 

And that isn't the Radius shown on that lot line that would be the curve length....

[Jeff_M]

I would get a copy of a grant deed for the property. Often times, at least out here in the West, the deeds would be more descriptive than the plat. Now, if the deed's description is just "Lot 80 of Grover Estates No. 1", then Michael's method would be used.

While the boundary is described with N, S, E, W directions, the internal lots have varying lengths for the side lot lines. This indicates that the roads are not running true N/S.

[mjfarrell]

might have to use an adjacent plat for the east west line....or somthing from say the BLM notes for the section...


Yes, decidedly I would want to get some older records (for the section) to establish a better basis of bearing for the original boundary.  Mostly because the way the legal description is written; I think they were using those directions very losely.

[Bob Wahr]

I would try a radius of 60' on the larger curve.  Actually would try offestting the 10' radius across the street first, and see how that worked.

[pkohut]

might have to use an adjacent plat for the east west line....or somthing from say the BLM notes for the section...


Yes, decidedly I would want to get some older records (for the section) to establish a better basis of bearing for the original boundary.  Mostly because the way the legal description is written; I think they were using those directions very losely.

Agreed.  There isn't enough info in the 2 provided drawing.  So need to research prior records for the section breakdown.  I question the png drawing that has "15' Radius" typed in, that looks wrong.

Paul

[Mark]

I question the png drawing that has "15' Radius" typed in, that looks wrong.

You are correct, as is MJF. I labeled that incorrectly.

[doggarncity]

Just for fun! I've attached a .pdf of the plat if you want more info.

Hi Mark
   We at the east coast city I work for will also use the County GIS and other places of that nature to see what new plats might be near on in the general area as they might have the most current deed that might have updates on the rights-of-way. This can be an exhaustive search or have a title company do it for you if critical. Your county GIS should be a treasure of info if it has had any development in that area. Just thoughts. We have had old plats that were assigned new bearings after the fact with newer surveys that had had easement or expansions of ROW with DOT or city/county ROW takes. Just some of what we have to do. Hope that might also help.

Mike P

[Mark]

From the deed ...

[mjfarrell]

Can I do the records search?  Can I?   I love going to pull records...

Really


I


Do

[doggarncity]

From the deed ...

Mark
  Do you have any parcel no.'s for any of the properties you are working with?

Mike P

[Mark]

Can I do the records search?  Can I?   I love going to pull records...

You can pull all the records you want.

But keep in mind this is just for fun, not something I'm looking for assistance on.

[Mark]

From the deed ...

  Do you have any parcel no.'s for any of the properties you are working with?

From: http://propmap3.hcpafl.org/

FOLIO: 0310930000
PIN NUMBER: U-34-28-18-18A-000000-00075.0

[doggarncity]

But keep in mind this is just for fun, not something I'm looking for assistance on.
[/quote]

Understand, here is the link to your county and if you can get an address or parcel or pin no. they can usually provide you with just about anything that has been recorded with little trouble. Just my way of a quick records search. It might be helpful.

http://propmap3.hcpafl.org/main.asp?msize=520


Mike P

[Mark]

I would try a radius of 60' on the larger curve.  Actually would try offestting the 10' radius across the street first, and see how that worked.

I agree Bob, that follows the intent of the plat.

[mjfarrell]

I would try a radius of 60' on the larger curve.  Actually would try offestting the 10' radius across the street first, and see how that worked.

I agree Bob, that follows the intent of the plat.

Fair certain those curves are NOT concentric. Or the lot dimension wouldn't be 80'

[Spike Wilbury]

from an outsider... my stab 

[mjfarrell]

from an outsider... my stab 

looks like you decided to hold the wrong line...

[pkohut]

from an outsider... my stab 

  

[mjfarrell]

it think it might be more or less like this from the information (NOT) given...

[Spike Wilbury]

it think it might be more or less like this from the information (NOT) given...

That's is not tangent to the right line and if it is break in two, it won't measure 68.25 + 15

AFIK

[Spike Wilbury]

it think it might be more or less like this from the information (NOT) given...

That's is not tangent to the right line and if it is break in two, it won't measure 68.25 + 15

AFIK

and unless here in the US and back then, they dimensioned both arcs as a single lot front... then maybe it is closed

[mjfarrell]

from what little information present one must work on a couple of premise;
that the distance shown is the total lot frontage,
or the distance show is just the large arc length,

and or pray that the surveyors actually unearth the lot corner where those two arcs meet....

and notice my disclaimer...More OR Less...

[Spike Wilbury]

from what little information present one must work on a couple of premise;
that the distance shown is the total lot frontage,
or the distance show is just the large arc length,

and or pray that the surveyors actually unearth the lot corner where those two arcs meet....

and notice my disclaimer...More OR Less...

I know Michael....

[mjfarrell]

It would be far easier to solve had they given us the two small arc lengths, as then there would only be one solution.

[Spike Wilbury]

It would be far easier to solve had they given us the two small arc lengths, as then there would only be one solution.

the calc's are no problem... in my case is that I'm neophyte about civil stuff here in the US.....

[mjfarrell]

trust me, the calc's are the problem....I have a version here that nets 76.16' across those lots...
however there are still far too many ass   umptions in there for my liking...

for the want of TWO chord angles....

[Dinosaur]

Here is my best solution . . . The numbers from the NE corner of the section seemed to indicate it was assumed 90 degrees with cardinal direction so I worked back from there and threw the wedge into the West line of the quarter/quarter and used the odd distances to set the bearing for the N/S roads.  The frontage of the lot doesn't quite fit but it looks like the intent was to have 35' radius reverse curves using this solution

[Spike Wilbury]

And my latest one...

[mjfarrell]

I hate to say it DinØ, I like something on the order of what LE has done as the relationship of the arcs, is nearer the original image, FWTW.   

[Swift]

Is this question asked to help figure out how this property would be surveyed?

What monuments were found? Are any of them mentioned in any recorded documents?

Other than that the road should get it's width first, then the distances prorated into the blocks.

I'd have to review some Florida law and history (I'm not licensed in FL) but here in VA I'd almost consider lot 80 as being a remainder lot, reason being in 1925 depending on the surveyor the math may not have been worked. It could be a guess, however at the same time he's given the distance to the hundredth of a foot so I'm a little skeptical of that. However it could also be likely that the "68.25" is the chord distance from corner of 79/80 to the corner of 81/80, reason being that it was an easier calculation to make in 1925.

At the very least I'd look for corners on the three blocks that form this intersection.

[Dinosaur]

I hate to say it DinØ, I like something on the order of what LE has done as the relationship of the arcs, is nearer the original image, FWTW.  

No need to hate saying it . . . I wasn't sold on mine . . . just too tired to keep going.
My reasoning on things like this is that most of the time the more simple you keep the procedure the more likely you are to be correct.  On a plat that old, the surveyor would not make very complex geometry.  They weren't able to pull out the HP and do cogo to solve a perfect curve for a given situation.  Anything irregular in the geometry meant notepad and pencil time working through the trig tables.  Lines were parallel and perpendicular whenever possible and nonsense like a very short tangent or curve segment in a lot line and non-tangent curves were avoided.  At a minimum the interior geometry would be square with wedges absorbed at the boundaries.  Many times, a single lot will be annotated defining squared corners and by extension forcing all other corners to be squared also except where dimensioned showing otherwise.  Another old trick was to define a 90 degree corner without calling it out would be to dimension a 3-4-5 triangle in the geometry.  As Michael pointed out earlier, often the information NOT given can carry significant weight in the solution.  Those curves are likely absorbing most of the error in the survey because it would be the most likely area to make a mistake and the most difficult to prove exactly where any error was made.