HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurvey NotesFRANKLIN T. FISCHER
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYDR
Des oG, ~o
93O WASHINGTON 5TREET PORT TOWNSEND, WA 96368 • (206) 365-1225
/o~~~/g ~
~Ruc ~
i
T o~ ~vu R. %~t j`~ ~/rt a % i~o rv
ff.~r~,~/,e ~am.~te,~r~ ,
~~~
i~ :~~ [; .~? y is G. _
rte'=_~ ._....
~~; f' ! ,
2: f,. i. _
- ~
~f__ ~ -- ~~ ~-b a :~ ...
~~
Franklin T_ Fischer
Professional Land Sur~ueyor
9~0 t,Jashington Street
Port Townsend, Wa_ 98368
C206~385-1225
October 31, 1984
REASONS FOR USING DUBACh; SUEIDIVISION OF SEC
18, TWP. 29 N., RNG. 1 E., W.M.
(1) Hlan Duback, in a survey recorded in vol. ~ of surveys, page 5,
followed the survey by J.T. Lay of Nov. 26, 1947 for William L, Hiller, in which
survey the section line between sections 7 and 1$ was established at 90 degrees
to a mile and a half section of the Willamette Meridian with two missing GLO
monuments, for which J,T. Lay singled proportioned the lost positions.
Subsequent surveys in section 7 have relied heavily on J.T. Lay's work; in that
section. tAs have all surveys in the south half of Marrowstone Island
necessarily relied on the work. of Lay, in that title to many subdivisions of
property and location of many occupation boundaries are direct descendants of
t hat work.. 1
(2) J.T. Lay, in establishing the presumably last boundary between sections
7 and 18, used a theoretically incorrect procedure. Article 5-45 in the 1973
"Manual of Surveying Instructions for the Survey of Public Lands of the United
States" (and similar articles in previous manuals) states, "Where a line has
been terminated with measurement in one direction only, a lost corner will be
restored by record bearing and distance, counting from the nearest regular
corner, the latter having been duly identified or restored." "Record bearing,"
of course, means here a true cardinal direction in that the GLO surveyor
purported to run the line between sections 7 and 1$ in the direction "East."
Article 5-45 allows for an exception to be made from this rule when a
"retracement" of "many miles... between original corners" reveals "a definate
angle from cardinal that characterises the original. survey." In this instance it
is not believed that the exception noted should be invoked, and, hence, J.T. Lay
should have determined and used a true "east" direction, It should tae noted
that L.ay based his bearing on a solar observation and should have been able to
come up with a cardinal direction for the line in question. One could speculate
that Lay felt that 90 degrees to the Willamette Meridian was a "best guess" as
to where the GLO surveyor ran the line, and that Lay was, in effect invak.ing the
exception to the rule noted above, My traverse connections with National
Geodetic Survey manunents indicate that fllan Duback.'s reestablishment of Lay's
line btween sections 7 and 18 is only one minute and 13 seconds out of being in
a cardinal "east" direction. Rs a result of all this, it can tae said that,
perhaps partly fartui.tausly, and, certainly as the result of a well considered
survey, J.T. Lay's reestablishment of this lost section line cannot be faulted,
IF IT TS LOST.
(3) Goerge Roots, at some date, 1961 or before, found a fence line and an
iron pipe along the fence line somewhere near 132~f feet easterly of the corner
common to sections 12,7,13 and 1.8. This fence line and pipe were south, between
30 and 45 feet, of Lay's section line. Lay was aware of the fence linei he
portrayed it graphically an his survey. The section line, east of Oak. Bay Road,
-1-
which is where the fence was (it did not extend from the sectian corner
mentioned}, was net, at the time of the Lay survey, nor has it been at any time
since, a property 6aundary. T.R, Yarr, the owner an both sides of the sectian
line east of the county road at the time of the Lay survey, was aware of and
subsequently concurred with the J.T. Lay survey of that line. This is
demaristrated by his conveyance of property to his daughter, Grace McMillen,
recorded under Auditor's file Number 140411, which cites Lay's bearing along the
sectian line in describing that portion of the property conveyed lying in
Government Lat 1 of Section 18. The fence, purported by Roots to be an the
section line, has long beer: destroyed, Yet the fence, along the south side of
the Yarr-McMillen property, presently rather new but being a perpetuation of a
long standing fence line, agrees substantially with Lay's, and consequently
quback."s, section line. It does net agree, by a wide margin, with the useage of
the old and destroyed fence as the sectian Iine. In a telephone conversation
with Grace McMillen, on October 29 of this year, I heard her state that she did
net know whether the old, destroyed fence line was the sectian line or nat. She
did say, however, that the existing feriae (which substantially agrees with Lay)
was established as the southerly boundary of her property (presently owned by
her son), and that she has long heard of the work of J.T. Lay in the area, and
that she has always assumed that Lay's work. was correct,
Gnerge Roots has used the location of the old fence as the sectian line ar~d
claims that using such a line agrees with property use along the section Iine.
It, demonstrably, does not agree with property use now, but the question remains
as to whether it was a perpetuation of the original sectian line. There is no
indication that it ever existed as a fence line emanating from the section
corner, only that it existed to the east of Oak Bay Road, Hence, it lases, to
my mind, its last chance at having a legitimate claim to be anything other than
a fence line.
-2-