Plat Coordinates "(Typical)"?

honda.lioness · 2017-06-25T17:05:23+00:00

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?

T

trader_4 9 years ago

e:

ical)" the surveyor is conveying that all wall lines and patio lines in and around 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' pati os, and two metes. The two metes are perpendicular to each other. The "(typ ical)" notation means the lines-of-sight apply to all the wall lines, and a ll the patio lines, in and around the building.

do with the distances.

of each unit and the boundaries of each patio. The plat also gives the dire ction each boundary faces. The plat does the latter by printing out two dir ections. For example, for one of the buildings, the following is printed ex actly once alongside two perpendicular boundaries of the building:

first boundary]

it in the building. Instead, the plat shows the two directions at one spot on the building's schematic and notes "(typical)." The "(typical)" means th at all the boundaries for this building are oriented per the two directions given.

ope it helps.

K, that helped a lot. I get it now.

So, inquiring minds want to know. How many patios are oversized, by how much and does the board have any idea how they got to be that way?

Vote

H

honda.lioness 9 years ago

Of the roughly 125 units having patios, five of the patios are oversized by about 50% to 75%. E.g. The Plat specifies 7 feet x 20 feet for one patio. The actual dimensions are about 12 feet x 20 feet.

My next-door neighbor has one of these enlarged patios. He told me some tim e ago that the developer made a deal with him, re the oversized patio, back in 2000 when the complex became a condo. I think that was probably the cas e for all five of the oversized patios, from the physical appearance of the fences. If the owners can provide some proof, then the law is on their sid e for adverse possession. Which solves all the legal problems "except" for completing paperwork. This is because the Declaration allows the Board to a pprove encroachments onto the common area such as those here. Most likely I will recommend that the "fair and reasonable" thing to do is to approve al l five of these patios and have the owners sign waivers of liability, stati ng the owner takes the maintenance and liability responsibility for the enl arged patio. Both the Declaration and Plat are on file with the county. The two documents work together. I am not sure if the Plat has to be amended.

Of course there are some back-bitings and vendettas going on. I am on the s ide of the law and gov docs. The bad guys on the board are after one owner in particular. On this one, I expect the bad guys will lose badly. It is ha rd to believe that _Peyton Place_ was written before the homeowners' associ ation was invented.

Vote

T

trader_4 9 years ago

by about 50% to 75%. E.g. The Plat specifies 7 feet x 20 feet for one patio . The actual dimensions are about 12 feet x 20 feet.

ime ago that the developer made a deal with him, re the oversized patio, ba ck in 2000 when the complex became a condo. I think that was probably the c ase for all five of the oversized patios, from the physical appearance of t he fences. If the owners can provide some proof, then the law is on their s ide for adverse possession. Which solves all the legal problems "except" fo r completing paperwork. This is because the Declaration allows the Board to approve encroachments onto the common area such as those here. Most likely I will recommend that the "fair and reasonable" thing to do is to approve all five of these patios and have the owners sign waivers of liability, sta ting the owner takes the maintenance and liability responsibility for the e nlarged patio. Both the Declaration and Plat are on file with the county. T he two documents work together. I am not sure if the Plat has to be amended .

side of the law and gov docs. The bad guys on the board are after one owne r in particular. On this one, I expect the bad guys will lose badly. It is hard to believe that _Peyton Place_ was written before the homeowners' asso ciation was invented.

I think it's common for the condo legal documents to say that the developer can do as they please when selling units, so if that's how it came to be, it makes sense. Another approach would be, if larger patios are OK with th e board, to allow everyone that wants a larger one to be permitted to make one. That might be the fairest and least controversial solution.

Vote

G

gfretwell 9 years ago

I imagine that she know that if these have been here a while the HOA might be inundated with adverse possession actions. Depending on state law, you can lose ownership of a piece of dirt if you consciously ignore a squatter.

Vote

T

trader_4 9 years ago

you that IMO, the slip and fall is just a lawyer yapping away, blowing up s omething to create a lot of trouble. The HOA has insurance in case someone slips on the common areas, yes? If someone's patio extends 2 ft into the common area and someone slips and decides to go after the hoa because they manage to figure out the patio extends where it should not, the hoa insuran ce company will defend or pay the claim and if they think the condo owner s hould pay some or all of it, they will go after them and their insurance.

prove 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 lawyer too. But the slip and fall stuff, call me very skeptical.

se I hear you. I should clarify that some of the board members started aski ng 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 a dvantage of the HOA. She has even said things like, "Sure, I could do this, but it will cost you a fortune. Send your own letter to the offending memb er, saying roughly this... " and so on.

It's a condo, I would bet it's impossible for a unit owner to use adverse p ossession to acquire a piece of the condo association's property for a numb er of reasons, starting with that the unit owner already owns a partial int erest in that piece, as defined by the documents. It would be something if you could convert part of a condo property to private property via adverse possession.

Vote