39694 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MCSR. 39694 LEGEND • = Found Monument as noted, flush with ground surface and in good condition unless otherwise noted O = Set 5/8"X30" Iron Rod with Yellow Plastic Cap Marked "AZIMUTH SURVEYING" ( ) = Data of Record = Data Computed from one or more Record Sources as noted W [ ] = Surveyor, File Number for survey in w which monument probably originated h I.P. = Iron Pipe I.R. = Iron Rod I.B. = Iron Bar W SCALE 1 = 10 I� REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR gow"A - Viyrd", OREGON JULY 25, 1990 JAMES S. HEPLER 2451 SPRINKLER NARRATIVE This survey was made to give a well —reasoned professional opinion as to the location of the land described in Reel 4552, Page 103 of the Marion County Deed Records. There are three components to the boundaries, each with separate problems. By deed, the east line is the bank of the North Santiam River. The westerly line is the east line of the various roads that have existed with several relocations of the bridge over the North Santiam River having required re —alignments. The north line is described at a location relative to the west quarter corner of Section 26, while the adjoining property is related to the southwest corner of Section 26 which makes this boundary susceptible to conflict. The east line is described by deed as the "Meander Line of the Right Bank of the Santiam River". At first glance this seems simple enough to locate. However, there is an ambiguity in that the Santiam River is not near this property. To make sense, the deed must be understood as using the local common parlance, "Santiam River" as synonymous with the North Santiam River. A further complication is introduced by ORS 93.310(4), which says, "When a road or stream of water not navigable is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road, or the thread of the stream, are included in the conveyance, except where the road or bed of the stream is held under another title." Furthermore, the courts have made clear in other contexts applying this rule of construction, that they do not favor leaving strips of land in abeyance for long periods because they tend to lead to vexatious litigation. If the North Santiam is not navigable for title purposes, then the easterly boundary may well be "the thread of the stream". After discussing the complexities of this boundary with my client, the task of determining whether the east boundary is the bank, or the thread of the stream was left for another day and another surveyor. For this survey the ordinary high water line was located as a point of reference without weighing in on the question of whether or not it is the boundary. The westerly boundary is described as the easterly line of the County Road. Again, a simple sounding task to locate the boundary. However, there have been at least four alignments of the County Road that passes in this vicinity. For sake of this tract of land, the 1941 location and the 1957 location are pertinent. Because of missing monuments and measurement standards that were different than today's standard, retracing this boundary is a complex task. Monuments from Graham's 1957 survey (see Survey 4209) and Fisher's 1941 survey (see Survey 9318), along with record data from the two surveys were used to identify the location of the right—of—way. AZIMUTH SURVEYING 2015 Market Street, NE Salem, Oregon 97301 Phone (503g) 364-0026 Project No. 22-001 SHEET: 3 OF 3 rn 00 GANDER REEL 3428, PAGE 439 EDGE OF GRAVEL BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR SHAWN MONTOYA in the SW 1 /4 of SECTION 26, T. 9 S., R. MARION COUNTY, OREGON AUGUST 2, 2022 O 0') N UTILITY CONDUIT CLUSTER GRAVELED PARKING AREA ■ ELECTRIC TERMINAL , , , SPRINKLER f ELECTRIC METER MONTOYA r�rr� A ==� M A ;E 103 At the north line, the two deeds describe the boundary differently. As any surveyor would understand, having the two properties located based on two different corners at some distance for the site almost guarantees a conflict. Prior surveys by Ralph Barnes (see Survey No. 16949) and Jim Andrews (see MCSR 38144) have placed monuments for the line. Comparing the two surveys indicates a difference of opinion between the two surveyors. Andrews apparently surveyed the line based on the legal description in Reel 3428, Page 439 and presumed that the calculated location of an iron pipe formerly existing in the road represented a point along the several courses used to relate the point of beginning to the southwest section corner. If that pipe was described by the deed or was part of the circumstance attending the conveyance of the property, then his approach might be valid. If the pipe was not located where the deed described it, it might be a valid presumption that some error occurred in the preceding courses and to apply the principle of leaving the error where the error occurred would be correct. It is clear by comparison of the actual deed courses that the pipe location used by Andrews is not at the location described by deed. Andrews erred by using a monument not called for by deed and not at the location described by deed. Notwithstanding, it is possible that the pipe represented the historic location described. The point was remonumented by Siegmund in 1956 (see survey 15137). It is possible that Siegmund made an error, or it is possible that prior surveys had incorrectly identified the location of the pipe. None of the history of the pipe's location really matters when Andrews' second error is understood. Where there is conflict in location, it is always necessary to review the deed history of the two conflicting descriptions. In 1961, Harry A. Robinson and Elnora I Robinson owned the two properties that comprised the aggregate of the two properties in question. Until this time the southerly property had been differently described. On November 9, 1961, Robinson conveyed the tract of land described in Volume 551, Page 70 to Tindall. At this conveyance the legal description was changed. On October 30, 1961, Ralph Barnes made a survey for Harry Robinson (see Survey No.16949). The courses in the deed match the description in the deed to Tindall. Andrews failed to recognize that the Barnes Survey is an original survey. Because the conveyance to Tindall was first, it is senior to the north adjoining property. Consequently, even if the pipe used by Andrews is the point intended by Reel 3426, Page 439, Reel 4552, Page 103 is senior. If the pipe was not at the intended point, then the two described locations differ by only about a foot. My approach has been to use the two Barnes surveys in the area to identify his location for the pipe in the road. Barnes himself had two 3 E., W.M. locations for the centerline of the road, so it is important to apply the appropriate centerline to a given set of monuments. Because of variations in later measurements, I think it is likely that some of the more southerly monuments may not be in the some location reported by Barnes. Therefore, I have given most weight to the Bates pipe used by Barnes, the Herrick iron pipe on centerline, and the centerline location identified by Phil Jones. In locating this boundary by this method, the deed courses to both section corner and quarter corner are matched within levels of precision to be expected for surveys for 1961 and prior. On the basis of the foregoing, monuments were established or reestablished as shown. Locations of improvements that are contrary indicia of occupation have been shown. MCSR 39694