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 neighborhood. 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 longitude GPS coordinates. The Plat also gives dimensions of the patios, to the nearest tenth of a foot Written beneath the coordinate numbers is:

(typical)

What does "(typical)" mean in the world of surveying and plats?

On 6/25/2017 10:05 AM, wrote:
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 neighborhood. 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 longitude GPS coordinates. The Plat also gives dimensions of the patios, to the nearest tenth of a foot Written beneath the coordinate numbers is:

(typical)

What does "(typical)" mean in the world of surveying and plats?



Are the patios on lot lines? I doubt it. If not, this is the surveyor
saying "I really don't care, since it is not defining a lot line".

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 1:11:57 PM UTC-4, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 6/25/2017 10:05 AM, wrote:
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 neighborhood. 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 longitude GPS coordinates. The Plat also gives dimensions of the patios, to the nearest tenth of a foot Written beneath the coordinate numbers is:

(typical)

What does "(typical)" mean in the world of surveying and plats?



Are the patios on lot lines? I doubt it. If not, this is the surveyor
saying "I really don't care, since it is not defining a lot line".

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.

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 10:05:23 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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 neighborhood. 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 longitude GPS coordinates. The Plat also gives dimensions of the patios, to the nearest tenth of a foot Written beneath the coordinate numbers is:

(typical)

What does "(typical)" mean in the world of surveying and plats?

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.

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 12:11:57 PM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:
Are the patios on lot lines? I doubt it. If not, this is the surveyor
saying "I really don't care, since it is not defining a lot line".


The neighborhood covenants and plat are both on file with the County. The patio areas are known as "limited common areas," with maintenance responsibility belonging to the homeowner. The land outside the patios is known as "common areas," and these are to be maintained by the neighborhood association.

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 actual 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 has stated there are liability concerns. Like a slip and fall on a portion of one of the patios that per the plats, encroaches on common area. The attorney was emphatic that no homeowner's patio could be enlarged to encroach on the common area.

This might be one of those splitting hair situations, but I am just not sure, especially after hearing from the attorney.

Thank you, Taxed and Spent, trader_4, and gfre for your quick responses.

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 12:13:12 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 12:11:57 PM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:
Are the patios on lot lines? I doubt it. If not, this is the surveyor
saying "I really don't care, since it is not defining a lot line".


The neighborhood covenants and plat are both on file with the County. The patio areas are known as "limited common areas," with maintenance responsibility belonging to the homeowner. The land outside the patios is known as "common areas," and these are to be maintained by the neighborhood association.

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 actual 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 has stated there are liability concerns. Like a slip and fall on a portion of one of the patios that per the plats, encroaches on common area. The attorney was emphatic that no homeowner's patio could be enlarged to encroach on the common area.

This might be one of those splitting hair situations, but I am just not sure, 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)

On 06/25/2017 11:05 AM, wrote:
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 neighborhood. 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 longitude GPS coordinates.

Where do you live? You may be looking at SPCS (State Plan Coordinate
System) coordinates widely used in the US.

http://gisgeography.com/state-plane-...e-system-spcs/

Probably more than you wanted to know.

On 06/25/2017 2:13 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 12:11:57 PM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent
wrote:
Are the patios on lot lines? I doubt it. If not, this is the
surveyor saying "I really don't care, since it is not defining a
lot line".


....

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 actual dimensions are much larger than what the Plat
shows.

So where, again, _is_ this "typical" notation if not on the aforesaid plat?

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 has stated there are liability
concerns.Like a slip and fall on
a portion of one of the patios that per the plats, encroaches on
common area. The attorney was emphatic that no homeowner's patio
could be enlarged to encroach on the common area.

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.

This might be one of those splitting hair situations, but I am just
not sure, especially after hearing from the attorney.

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.

--

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 06/25/2017 2:13 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 12:11:57 PM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent
wrote:
Are the patios on lot lines? I doubt it. If not, this is the
surveyor saying "I really don't care, since it is not defining a
lot line".


...

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 actual dimensions are much larger than what the Plat
shows.

So where, again, _is_ this "typical" notation if not on the aforesaid plat?


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.




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 has stated there are liability
concerns.Like a slip and fall on
a portion of one of the patios that per the plats, encroaches on
common area. The attorney was emphatic that no homeowner's patio
could be enlarged to encroach on the common area.

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.


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.




This might be one of those splitting hair situations, but I am just
not sure, especially after hearing from the attorney.

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.

--

L

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:54:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 06/25/2017 2:13 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 12:11:57 PM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent
wrote:
Are the patios on lot lines? I doubt it. If not, this is the
surveyor saying "I really don't care, since it is not defining a
lot line".


...

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 actual dimensions are much larger than what the Plat
shows.

So where, again, _is_ this "typical" notation if not on the aforesaid plat?


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.


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$$.

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 3:08:46 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 06/25/2017 11:05 AM, honda.lioness wrote:
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 neighborhood. 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 longitude GPS coordinates.

Where do you live? You may be looking at SPCS (State Plan Coordinate
System) coordinates widely used in the US.

http://gisgeography.com/state-plane-...e-system-spcs/

Excellent. NI think I understand much better. From the plat, here's a typical 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 patios vary a lot.

cl...@snyder: Yes, some owners have encroachments. Some may have been approved 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 makes 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 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.

I do have the contact info for the surveyor from the Plat. They already answered one question and were great. Before I call again, let me seek one more 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 with 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 is one of the few benefits of this volunteer gig now and then.

On 6/25/2017 4:28 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:54:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 06/25/2017 2:13 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 12:11:57 PM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent
wrote:
Are the patios on lot lines? I doubt it. If not, this is the
surveyor saying "I really don't care, since it is not defining a
lot line".


...

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 actual dimensions are much larger than what the Plat
shows.

So where, again, _is_ this "typical" notation if not on the aforesaid plat?


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.


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$$.



sounds like the improvements were not yet built. This was a plat map
showing improvements accepted by the planning department. Hence the
"typical" patio.

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 3:08:46 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 06/25/2017 11:05 AM, honda.lioness wrote:
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 neighborhood. 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 longitude GPS coordinates.

Where do you live? You may be looking at SPCS (State Plan Coordinate
System) coordinates widely used in the US.

http://gisgeography.com/state-plane-...e-system-spcs/

Excellent. NI think I understand much better. From the plat, here's a typical 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 the patios vary a lot.

cl...@snyder: Yes, some owners have encroachments. Some may have been approved 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 makes 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 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.

I do have the contact info for the surveyor from the Plat. They already answered one question and were great. Before I call again, let me seek one more 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 with 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 is one of the few benefits of this volunteer gig now and then.

On 6/25/2017 3:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 06/25/2017 2:13 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 12:11:57 PM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent
wrote:
Are the patios on lot lines? I doubt it. If not, this is the
surveyor saying "I really don't care, since it is not defining a
lot line".


...

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 actual dimensions are much larger than what the Plat
shows.

So where, again, _is_ this "typical" notation if not on the aforesaid plat?


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.




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 has stated there are liability
concerns.Like a slip and fall on
a portion of one of the patios that per the plats, encroaches on
common area. The attorney was emphatic that no homeowner's patio
could be enlarged to encroach on the common area.

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.


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 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.

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 6:49:46 PM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:
sounds like the improvements were not yet built. This was a plat map
showing improvements accepted by the planning department. Hence the
"typical" patio.

This does sound like it might be my condo's situation. The buildings here were 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 entire 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 larger patio. I cannot find documentation of this on the Plat or in his Warranty Deed, except maybe for the "(typical)" notation. What do you think? The Declaration permitted the developer to approve these enlargements (converting common area land to limited common area land). The fences make the boundaries 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.)

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:48:09 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 3:08:46 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 06/25/2017 11:05 AM, honda.lioness wrote:
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 neighborhood. 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 longitude GPS coordinates.

Where do you live? You may be looking at SPCS (State Plan Coordinate
System) coordinates widely used in the US.

http://gisgeography.com/state-plane-...e-system-spcs/

Excellent. NI think I understand much better. From the plat, here's a typical 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 patios vary a lot.

cl...@snyder: Yes, some owners have encroachments. Some may have been approved 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 makes 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 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.

I do have the contact info for the surveyor from the Plat. They already answered one question and were great. Before I call again, let me seek one more 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 with 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 is one of the few benefits of this volunteer gig now and then.

If it was in Ontario I'd ask my brother, a Condo specialist in a land
survey practice for the details and ramifications.

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 7:50:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 3:08:46 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 06/25/2017 11:05 AM, honda.lioness wrote:
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 neighborhood. 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 longitude GPS coordinates.

Where do you live? You may be looking at SPCS (State Plan Coordinate
System) coordinates widely used in the US.

http://gisgeography.com/state-plane-...e-system-spcs/

Excellent. NI think I understand much better. From the plat, here's a typical 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 the patios vary a lot.

cl...@snyder: Yes, some owners have encroachments. Some may have been approved 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 makes 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 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.

I do have the contact info for the surveyor from the Plat. They already answered one question and were great. Before I call again, let me seek one more 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 with the Plat. If I found it was 20 feet, then this could pose a legal threat in a slip and fall?


IDK, the typical is in the middle of it, so who knows. But I can tell you that IMO, the slip and fall is just a lawyer yapping away, blowing up something 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 insurance company 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 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.



All the responses have been helpful. Many thanks. I learned something. It is one of the few benefits of this volunteer gig now and then.

Here is the response from the surveyor:

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 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' 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 the patio lines, in and around the building.

The surveyor said the "(typical)" notation has absolutely nothing to do with the distances.

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:30:18 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
IDK, the typical is in the middle of it, so who knows. But I can tell you that IMO, the slip and fall is just a lawyer yapping away, blowing up something 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 insurance company 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 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.


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 advantage 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 member, saying roughly this... " and so on.

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:42:49 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Here is the response from the surveyor:

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 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' 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 the patio lines, in and around the building.

The surveyor said the "(typical)" notation has absolutely nothing to do with 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?

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:59:15 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:42:49 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Here is the response from the surveyor:

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 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' 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 the patio lines, in and around the building.

The surveyor said the "(typical)" notation has absolutely nothing to do with 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?

Each building has 8 different condo units. The plat shows the boundaries of each unit and the boundaries of each patio. The plat also gives the direction each boundary faces. The plat does the latter by printing out two directions. For example, for one of the buildings, the following is printed exactly once alongside two perpendicular boundaries of the building:

N 15 degrees E [shown along one boundary]

N 75 degrees W [shown along a second boundary, drawn perpendicular to the first boundary]

The plat does not explicitly print these directions out for each condo unit in the building. Instead, the plat shows the two directions at one spot on the building's schematic and notes "(typical)." The "(typical)" means that all the boundaries for this building are oriented per the two directions given.

I probably cannot explain this any better without uploading the Plat. I hope it helps.

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 12:24:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:59:15 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:42:49 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Here is the response from the surveyor:

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 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' 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 the patio lines, in and around the building.

The surveyor said the "(typical)" notation has absolutely nothing to do with 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?

Each building has 8 different condo units. The plat shows the boundaries of each unit and the boundaries of each patio. The plat also gives the direction each boundary faces. The plat does the latter by printing out two directions. For example, for one of the buildings, the following is printed exactly once alongside two perpendicular boundaries of the building:

N 15 degrees E [shown along one boundary]

N 75 degrees W [shown along a second boundary, drawn perpendicular to the first boundary]

The plat does not explicitly print these directions out for each condo unit in the building. Instead, the plat shows the two directions at one spot on the building's schematic and notes "(typical)." The "(typical)" means that all the boundaries for this building are oriented per the two directions given.

I probably cannot explain this any better without uploading the Plat. I hope 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?

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:35:39 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
How many patios are oversized, by how
much and does the board have any idea how they got to be that way?

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 time 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 case 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 side for adverse possession. Which solves all the legal problems "except" for 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, stating the owner takes the maintenance and liability responsibility for the enlarged 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 side 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 hard to believe that _Peyton Place_ was written before the homeowners' association was invented.

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:38:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:35:39 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
How many patios are oversized, by how
much and does the board have any idea how they got to be that way?

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 time 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 case 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 side for adverse possession. Which solves all the legal problems "except" for 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, stating the owner takes the maintenance and liability responsibility for the enlarged 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 side 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 hard to believe that _Peyton Place_ was written before the homeowners' association 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 the board, to allow everyone that wants a larger one to be permitted to make one. That might be the fairest and least controversial solution.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 08:48:26 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:30:18 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
IDK, the typical is in the middle of it, so who knows. But I can tell you that IMO, the slip and fall is just a lawyer yapping away, blowing up something 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 insurance company 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 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.


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 advantage 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 member, saying roughly this... " and so on.

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.

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:42:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 08:48:26 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:30:18 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
IDK, the typical is in the middle of it, so who knows. But I can tell you that IMO, the slip and fall is just a lawyer yapping away, blowing up something 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 insurance company 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 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.


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 advantage 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 member, saying roughly this... " and so on.

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.

It's a condo, I would bet it's impossible for a unit owner to use adverse possession to acquire a piece of the condo association's property for a number of reasons, starting with that the unit owner already owns a partial interest 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.