I am studying a surveyor's map of the neighborhood where I live. The map is on record at the County Clerk's and is known as "the Plat" for my neighbor hood. For some of the patios, it notes coordinates for north (or south) and east (or west), relative to some point but clearly not latitude and longit ude GPS coordinates. The Plat also gives dimensions of the patios, to the n earest tenth of a foot Written beneath the coordinate numbers is:
(typical)
What does "(typical)" mean in the world of surveying and plats?
p is on record at the County Clerk's and is known as "the Plat" for my neig hborhood. For some of the patios, it notes coordinates for north (or south) and east (or west), relative to some point but clearly not latitude and lo ngitude GPS coordinates. The Plat also gives dimensions of the patios, to t he nearest tenth of a foot Written beneath the coordinate numbers is:
And that he didn't look at all the patios, measure them, and that some could be larger or smaller. And if it matters to someone then further investigation is warranted.
I spent a day with the surveyors here. I am not sure how Mason and Dixon did their job but these days they start by finding "monuments" (rebar in a small concrete block at grade) designated on the filed plat. They get a GPS fix on that then start looking for rebar pins on lot corners. Once they get a bunch in the machine it can pretty much pinpoint anything they are looking for. Most of the job is done with the GPS and a metal detector. Once they pinpoint the lot corners everything is just line of sight.
The neighborhood covenants and plat are both on file with the County. The p atio areas are known as "limited common areas," with maintenance responsibi lity belonging to the homeowner. The land outside the patios is known as "c ommon areas," and these are to be maintained by the neighborhood associatio n.
The Plat does show dimensions of each patio, to the nearest tenth of a foot . There is no "(typical)" recorded under these dimensions. Several patios a ctual dimensions are much larger than what the Plat shows.
Some disputes have arisen. This is because the Plats give one boundary but the reality on the ground is different. The association's general counsel h as stated there are liability concerns. Like a slip and fall on a portion o f one of the patios that per the plats, encroaches on common area. The atto rney was emphatic that no homeowner's patio could be enlarged to encroach o n the common area.
This might be one of those splitting hair situations, but I am just not sur e, especially after hearing from the attorney.
Thank you, Taxed and Spent, trader_4, and gfre for your quick responses.
Sounds like a "condominium" development and it sounds like several owners have contavened the bylaws and encroached on common areas. I'd be wary. ( Like I wouldn't buy into the Condo development)
So where, again, _is_ this "typical" notation if not on the aforesaid plat?
Liability for whom? I see none other than that of the single owner who broke the covenant and enlarged his patio -- unless, of course, the HOA approved such an action in contravention to the covenants; that could make those who participated in such parties.
Well, when lawyers get involved and HOA associations with the likelihood of there being at least one litigious sort in the development, anything is possible.
If yours is one outside the covenants, that's possibly a concern. If not, wouldn't sweat it. Then again, if you're not actually an owner (yet) and are researching on the basis of "what if?" and the unit in question is one of these it could come back to bite as above. As another already noted, avoiding those kinds of entanglements is, imo, "a good thing" as just general practice; there's bound to be somewhere else to live without such hassles.
He said its on the plat. Reading it again, it sounds like the "typical" applies to the offset for a patio relative to an unknown point. Simplest thing would be to go ask whoever drew it up.
He cited a slip and fall, where who is responsible for the patio would be an issue. But practically, I don't see it as a problem either. The HOA should have insurance as should condo owners, if someone falls, let the two insurance companies resolve it.
I find it interesting that "improvements" even show on the plat filed with the county. They are usually submitted by the developer and do not change unless there is a total redevelopment of the property. The plats recorded for my neighborhood were filed in 1956, at least a year before there were actually any homes here. We still have some vacant lots. When lots have been joined, they just show as lot "X" and "Y" on the title with a single tax (strap) number, usually of the lower number lot. I don't think they would let you actually change lot corners, like making 3 lots into 2 without going through the whole development proce$$.
p is on record at the County Clerk's and is known as "the Plat" for my neig hborhood. For some of the patios, it notes coordinates for north (or south) and east (or west), relative to some point but clearly not latitude and lo ngitude GPS coordinates.
Excellent. NI think I understand much better. From the plat, here's a typic al notation on what looks schematically like a patio border:
N 88 degrees 15' 13" E (TYPICAL)
8.3 feet
One boundary of this patio runs in the direction (line of sight) shown, for 8.3 feet. This direction is 76 degrees rotated East from North, or almost due East. The community has around 100 patios. The dimensions for the patio s vary a lot.
cl...@snyder: Yes, some owners have encroachments. Some may have been appro ved by the Declarant 17 years ago, or the subsequent board, consistent with the requirements of the governing documents. Someone complained about one of the seeming encroachments. The board is now stuck with checking about a half dozen patios that seem to be much larger than what the Plat says. All the patios have fences around them, so this is a boundary of sorts that mak es measurement easy.
dpb, no, I am not the perp here. I am on the board. Yes, condos have their problems. It is no fun, mostly, but I try to stay cheerful. Fortunately I h ave done this in the past. The only thing I care about is infrastructure ma intenance and do not screw up the finances. If I were not feeling too old t o be on the roof, I'd be in a small house. But I have good neighbors; it's economical by my calculations; it's safe. The Board has evolved (knock on w ood). It's no longer "The HOA Hunger Games." It is "HOA Survivor." No one i s getting harassed the way they were in the past.
I do have the contact info for the surveyor from the Plat. They already ans wered one question and were great. Before I call again, let me seek one mor e opinion from readers here. Do people here think the "(TYPICAL)" refers to the 8.3 feet being an approximation? E.g. if I measured this owner's patio and found it was 8.9 feet, this is close enough to say it is consistent wi th the Plat. If I found it was 20 feet, then this could pose a legal threat in a slip and fall?
All the responses have been helpful. Many thanks. I learned something. It i s one of the few benefits of this volunteer gig now and then. :)
sounds like the improvements were not yet built. This was a plat map showing improvements accepted by the planning department. Hence the "typical" patio.
p is on record at the County Clerk's and is known as "the Plat" for my neig hborhood. For some of the patios, it notes coordinates for north (or south) and east (or west), relative to some point but clearly not latitude and lo ngitude GPS coordinates.
Excellent. NI think I understand much better. From the plat, here's a typic al notation on what looks schematically like a patio border:
N 88 degrees 15' 13" E (TYPICAL)
8.3 feet
One boundary of this patio runs in the direction (line of sight) shown, for 8.3 feet. This direction is about 88 degrees rotating East from North, or almost due East. The community has around 100 patios. The dimensions for th e patios vary a lot.
cl...@snyder: Yes, some owners have encroachments. Some may have been appro ved by the Declarant 17 years ago, or the subsequent board, consistent with the requirements of the governing documents. Someone complained about one of the seeming encroachments. The board is now stuck with checking about a half dozen patios that seem to be much larger than what the Plat says. All the patios have fences around them, so this is a boundary of sorts that mak es measurement easy.
dpb, no, I am not the perp here. I am on the board. Yes, condos have their problems. It is no fun, mostly, but I try to stay cheerful. Fortunately I h ave done this in the past. The only thing I care about is infrastructure ma intenance and do not screw up the finances. If I were not feeling too old t o be on the roof, I'd be in a small house. But I have good neighbors; it's economical by my calculations; it's safe. The Board has evolved (knock on w ood). It's no longer "The HOA Hunger Games." It is "HOA Survivor." No one i s getting harassed the way they were in the past.
I do have the contact info for the surveyor from the Plat. They already ans wered one question and were great. Before I call again, let me seek one mor e opinion from readers here. Do people here think the "(TYPICAL)" refers to the 8.3 feet being an approximation? E.g. if I measured this owner's patio and found it was 8.9 feet, this is close enough to say it is consistent wi th the Plat. If I found it was 20 feet, then this could pose a legal threat in a slip and fall?
All the responses have been helpful. Many thanks. I learned something. It i s one of the few benefits of this volunteer gig now and then. :)
I see it as a problem. If I am a member of the HOA, I don't want my HOA fees going up due to increased insurance premiums because it is argued the extra large patio encroaching on the common area is the HOA responsibility.
This does sound like it might be my condo's situation. The buildings here w ere built in 1991. The developer couldn't sell them as condos and so rented them as apartments for several years. Then the developer converted the ent ire property to condos around 2000. The year 2000 is the date on the plats. I think the patio fences were added in 2000. Sales of the units took place . One long-time owner here told me he negotiated with the developer for a l arger patio. I cannot find documentation of this on the Plat or in his Warr anty Deed, except maybe for the "(typical)" notation. What do you think? Th e Declaration permitted the developer to approve these enlargements (conver ting common area land to limited common area land). The fences make the bou ndaries clear, if there is a slip and fall. (Well, as clear as they can be without a legal dispute and the entry of a horde of attorneys looking for a payout.)
map is on record at the County Clerk's and is known as "the Plat" for my ne ighborhood. For some of the patios, it notes coordinates for north (or sout h) and east (or west), relative to some point but clearly not latitude and longitude GPS coordinates.
ical notation on what looks schematically like a patio border:
or 8.3 feet. This direction is about 88 degrees rotating East from North, o r almost due East. The community has around 100 patios. The dimensions for the patios vary a lot.
roved by the Declarant 17 years ago, or the subsequent board, consistent wi th the requirements of the governing documents. Someone complained about on e of the seeming encroachments. The board is now stuck with checking about a half dozen patios that seem to be much larger than what the Plat says. Al l the patios have fences around them, so this is a boundary of sorts that m akes measurement easy.
r problems. It is no fun, mostly, but I try to stay cheerful. Fortunately I have done this in the past. The only thing I care about is infrastructure maintenance and do not screw up the finances. If I were not feeling too old to be on the roof, I'd be in a small house. But I have good neighbors; it' s economical by my calculations; it's safe. The Board has evolved (knock on wood). It's no longer "The HOA Hunger Games." It is "HOA Survivor." No one is getting harassed the way they were in the past.
nswered one question and were great. Before I call again, let me seek one m ore opinion from readers here. Do people here think the "(TYPICAL)" refers to the 8.3 feet being an approximation? E.g. if I measured this owner's pat io and found it was 8.9 feet, this is close enough to say it is consistent with the Plat. If I found it was 20 feet, then this could pose a legal thre at in a slip and fall?
IDK, the typical is in the middle of it, so who knows. But I can tell you t hat IMO, the slip and fall is just a lawyer yapping away, blowing up someth ing to create a lot of trouble. The HOA has insurance in case someone slip s on the common areas, yes? If someone's patio extends 2 ft into the commo n area and someone slips and decides to go after the hoa because they manag e to figure out the patio extends where it should not, the hoa insurance co mpany will defend or pay the claim and if they think the condo owner should pay some or all of it, they will go after them and their insurance.
If some of those patios greatly exceed what they should be and you can prov e that they were done after original construction and the board wants to pu rsue it, that's another story. And probably plenty of money for that lawye r too. But the slip and fall stuff, call me very skeptical.
is one of the few benefits of this volunteer gig now and then. :)
The "(typical)" notation applies only to the lines-of-sight. By "(typical)" the surveyor is conveying that all wall lines and patio lines in and aroun d the building comport with the given lines of sight. In other words, the p lat shows a building, all the building's condo units, the units' patios, an d two metes. The two metes are perpendicular to each other. The "(typical)" notation means the lines-of-sight apply to all the wall lines, and all the patio lines, in and around the building.
The surveyor said the "(typical)" notation has absolutely nothing to do wit h the distances.
that IMO, the slip and fall is just a lawyer yapping away, blowing up some thing to create a lot of trouble. The HOA has insurance in case someone sl ips on the common areas, yes? If someone's patio extends 2 ft into the com mon area and someone slips and decides to go after the hoa because they man age to figure out the patio extends where it should not, the hoa insurance company will defend or pay the claim and if they think the condo owner shou ld pay some or all of it, they will go after them and their insurance.
ove that they were done after original construction and the board wants to pursue it, that's another story. And probably plenty of money for that law yer too. But the slip and fall stuff, call me very skeptical.
The HOA has insurance. Each condo unit is required to have insurance. Else I hear you. I should clarify that some of the board members started asking questions about certain patios and insisted the attorney be consulted. I am hopeful the HOA attorney will recognize naivete and busybody-ness when she sees it. So far the HOA attorney has not seemed to be looking to take adva ntage of the HOA. She has even said things like, "Sure, I could do this, bu t it will cost you a fortune. Send your own letter to the offending member, saying roughly this... " and so on.
)" the surveyor is conveying that all wall lines and patio lines in and aro und the building comport with the given lines of sight. In other words, the plat shows a building, all the building's condo units, the units' patios, and two metes. The two metes are perpendicular to each other. The "(typical )" notation means the lines-of-sight apply to all the wall lines, and all t he patio lines, in and around the building.
ith the distances.
I'm still not sure what that means. What line of sight does it mean? Does it mean that they didn't survey the patios exact location, but they didn't notice that they were out of whack from where they are supposed to be based on sight?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.