Reading a Surveyors Plot Plan Question

[MarkF48]

I've been going over some of my old home and property records and I came upon and old plot plan from 1967 just prior to when my wife and I bought the property. The actual property line between me and the neighbor has never been disputed and likely he doesn't know where the property line actually is or even cares. Most of the plot plan is fairly clear to me as straight lines and coordinates, but I'm not sure about the road frontage that includes a radius. There is frontage that is 326.06 ft. which continues as a radius portion of 97.72 ft. I'm not sure if the 326 ft specifies the total frontage and the 97 ft is considered a separate as a dimension for the radius by itself or if the two are added for a total of about 424 ft. The iron pin (I.P.) is not visible above ground where I think it should be and I've searched with a metal detector if it had gotten buried over the years. I did locate the D.H. (drill hole) marker at the opposite end in a large stone. The plot plan was done by a licensed surveyor and registered with the state/county 'Registry of Deeds' so I don't doubt it is correct.

Are these road front footages considered separate or added?

Plot plan section image attached.....

 

[Steppenwolfe]

Yes, I believe they are added. If you notice the longer measurement is referenced with an azimuth and the second with a radius. That's how I see it anyways. Been a long time since I had my surveying course in college.

 

[dodge man]

I am a land surveyor, an I would say the two numbers would be added together, in other words, the 424 feet. I'm am by no means sure of that though. Most plats are to scale so when I'm in doubt, I lay a scale on the plat and you can figure out which is correct.

 

[Stimw]

looking at the image posted, the 92' is the distance and the 660' shown is the radius of the 92'.

 

[RNeumann]

I’m seeing a very slight tick mark between the two numbers. Typically that’s showing a beginning or end of a measurement. So, in this case, it would be two distances, separated by the tick mark.....as stated they would be added.

Btw- your metal detector probably isn’t on par with what a surveyor would have. I looked for a pin for hours with a detector. Hired a surveyor who came out with more of a pistol looking detector. He waved that thing around and found it in about 1 minute. The sensitivity was incredible. He was getting alerts from 5-10’ away.

 

[rbtjr]

I have worked a lot over the years with metes and bounds descriptions of land. I agree that the 97' and the 326' are separate distances to be added together. I also agree that the little tick mark indicates where the 326' straight line distance ends and the 97' arc distance begins. And I also agree that the drawing is almost certainly made to scale, with the scale being shown on the drawing. If so, you could verify these conclusions.

 

[clemsonfor]

I too would say that they are added. Also that is done to some scale. Even if your copy has been shrunk or blown up and no longer is to scale. Look up online if your county is and you will see the measurement or go to courthouse and pull the plat and find the scale . Also if you know about where the lines are use one of the mapping, acreage, measuring sites online or Google Earth and measure the distance. You obviously won't be exact but I'm sure you will come up within 10-20 foot of that added number.

 

[MarkF48]

Took some suggestions here to consider the scale of the plat. The original done by the 'engineer' is noted '1 in = 40ft'. What I have is a copy I downloaded from the Registry of Deeds site printed on my laser printer, thus the scale is different, but determined to be about 1 in = 62 ft after measuring all sides and doing a bit of math. The radius of 97.72 ft seems correct per the inches measured with a ruler and converted. The total distance corner to corner appears to be about 290 ft and not 424 ft. I think the 'engineer' that drew up the certified and approved drawing blew it on the 326.06 ft number as I think it should be about 190 ft as measured and taking into account the scale on the print out I have.

I redrew that one side using an architectural scale I have from my days of drafting many years ago, one line at 1in/40ft representing the total 290 ft and split at the radius for 97.72 ft. If I roll the architectural scale to the 1in/60ft side and measure the '290 ft' line it comes near to 424 ft. At a guess the 'engineer' may have inadvertently rolled his scale to a different scale when making a measurement and it got onto the plat. No way of knowing what he did for sure, but it evidently appears incorrect. Drawn by one, signed off/checked by three others, and accepted by the 'Registry of Deeds' .

I did do some more digging of documents this afternoon and did find a text description of the property and the road front is noted at 17.5 rods. Found a convertor online for rods to feet and it came up around 289 feet which concurs with what I measured on the plat, but not the number on the plat.

 

[RoyKing]

So what is the question are you trying to find the line with your neighbor? Then you would have find the degrees rotated by the arc 660.57/97.72 which gives you the angle then you could find the strait line distance in the street to set transit and then swing the angle of his property line. No something that can done with rulers.

 

[MarkF48]

So what is the question are you trying to find the line with your neighbor? Then you would have find the degrees rotated by the arc 660.57/97.72 which gives you the angle then you could find the strait line distance in the street to set transit and then swing the angle of his property line. No something that can done with rulers.

Nope, just wondering where the line was myself. It had gotten overgrown with brush over the years and it wasn't as clear where it really was. The arc of the radius is really quite gradual and while it may be inaccurate to measure with a ruler, it's close enough that I know something was amiss with the numbers on the plat.