Loading...
Connell/Skaggs/FP-CS 870520 Pat Hamlin Boorhem May 20, 1987 Mr. Frank Trando City of Coppell P. O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 Dear Frank: In response to your telephone call yesterday, I am forwarding a copy of the latest survey along with surveyor's report on the 10.8419 acre tract of property on Denton Tap Road. Also enclosed is a copy of the filed plat of Shadydale acres showing the twenty foot (20') drainage and utility easement to the west of our property. Please advise if additional informa- tion is needed. Very truly yours, Pat Boorhom PB/crf 9400 N Cen*rc' Exoressway, Suite 1480, Dallas. Texas 75231. (214) 739-8818 ~. 7o..5-/ "'"'/ / / '~- 0 v,,.,, ~o' ~,t, . ~u. ,,3 '~- ;~ I, ' ' · . :..- , ,,,o. ~ T~ACTi' ..... 'q e F (~ ~1 ,r '~ '~' I~'''''''t¥'':':;i'~?'~*'':~: q/"~':-.'~:~':~[:~'~ .... :,,~,~. ' '-: "'": I ! .:.:-.' .... . ~ ? o' ""°" ~'"'°'~' ..l '~ ~I ~c "' . - . ~. z :'~ ...... ~':'~"'~" I ~,1 ' ~C~.¥:.;~..~:.~ :~. ....... ~..~-~. J ~.;~"Z~;~.z~ /~/~/~ j ~,:,~.~,~-~'r,:,,~- ........ ='.-'~.'---:'~-~' - "' Z! .~. . .- I ~'--"=~= ....... '::~'-:~-:i ;:.:-~: :~:T.'-?' · L..~' / ~ 0; / ~ 0 ' ' I ! '.'".._.~:i"':"~:'-':~:.. " .......... . .· .. ' i' ' ,, I' I I ~ ', -- . .-i~' :/-,e..^ cT ~-; ........ ~-- -'..: ::. ~vo. r I~ ' ~ ~ ' ..... '"~'? :'~"'~' . I 1~ ' i ' t" '~' ' ..... ' ~ /__2~,.~ ' I - - --'"-'~_~ t ' ' / <~-G / .- FIL[O VOL SHADYDALE ACRES  LANDES & ASSOCIATES, INC, REGISTEREO PUBLIC SURVEYORS 1107 E. FIRST STREET · FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102 · (817) 870-!220 - METRO 654-0590 SURVEYOR'S REPORT 10.8419 acres of land situated in the George W. Jack Survey, Abstract No. 694, City of Coppell, Dallas County, Texas. The purpose of this report is to document certain facts coacerning the above described property as surveyed by me in December, 1986 and January, 1987. This report will document evidence obtained to confirm a 0.1253 of an acre encroachment into the Shadydale Acres subdivision by the deed of William Boorhem, Volume 85111, Page 1202, Dallas County Deed Records. This £eport will also document evidence obtained to confirm that a 0.0600 of an acre of land "save and excepted" from the Boorhem deed was not a portion of the gross area as described in the field notes of the Boorhem deed. The evidence which follows was obtained from the following sources: 1. General Land Office, Austin, Texas - Original field notes and patent notes of the George W. Jack Survey and all adjacent surveys. 2. Dallas County Deed Records, Dallas, Texas Abstract of Title from the State of Texas, January 31, 1857 to present. 3. Dallas County Public Works Department, Dallas, Texas - Visual observation of County maps (copies unavailable due to broken microfilm equipment). 4. State Department of Public Highways and Transpor- tation, District 18, Dallas, Texas - Parole evidence of State Employee in Right-Of-Way Department concerning State's Right-Of-Way. 5. City of Coppel, City Engineer Right-Of-Way Department. 6. State Department of Public Highways and Transpor- tation, Austin, Texas, Jack Wood, Right-Of-Way Map and Records. 7. Lawyers Title Company, Dallas Branch, Dallas, Texas. 8. Field Survey 9. Parole Evidence - Original Shadydaie Addition Surveyor, Roy E. McDaniel, Jr. 10. Parole Evidence - Wendell Partain, Surveyor of Property from which the Boorhem deed was p£epared. ABSTRACT OF TITLE 1/31/1857 160 acres State of Texas to George W. Jack 9/6/1858 160 acres Jack to Henry B. Hutchins Volume 233, Page 421 7/23/1860 State of Texas to Hutchins patented 160 acres, Volume 233, Page 421 1/27/1870 East 60 acres of 160 ac~es Hutchins to Silvestec Record, Volume 0, Page 272 11/26/1896 South 30 acres of East 60 acres Record Estate to J. B. Harrison, Volume 207, Page 406 8/10/1897 30 acres Harrison to S.B. Burden, Volume 287, Page 359 11/10/1903 30 acres Burden to F. M. Taylor Volume 311, Page 584 10/19/1907 30 acres Taylor to W. M. Thompson, Volume 486, Page 424 3/26/1930 North 15 acres of above 30 acres Thompson to A. D. Ocum, Volume 1625, Page 09 4/16/31 15 ac£es Orum to G. A. Waggoner, Volume 1692, Page 422 5/31/31 15 acres Waggoner to Roy Russell, Volume 1692, Page 420 10/26/32 15.6 acres Russell to J. A. Hanby, Volume 1864, Page 430 6/30/43 15.6 acres Hanby to Mrs. Louella Miller, Volume 2442, Page 198 5/31/85 10.9655 acres Miller to William Boorhem et ux Volume 85111, Page 1202 SURVEYOR'S SUMMARY The apparent conflict along the west line of the Boo£hem tract of land was a result of many facto£s covering a very long period of time. It is my opinion that the west line of the Boorhem tract, the tract adjacent to the south, the tract adjacent to the north and the east line of Shadydale Acres Addition should be one and the same line and the line is and was intended to be the common line between the 60 acre tract and the 100 acre tract partitioned by Henry B. Hutchins in Volume O, Page 272, January 27, 1870 to Silvester Record. The deed to Record does not describe the east 60 acres, but again describes the total 160 acre Jack Survey. The west 100 acres of the survey was conveyed from Hutchins to James E. Hutchins, 9/26/1873, Volume U, Page 459, some thuee years later. Ail of the subsequent deeds through 1931 are described by cardinal bearings and distances are in varas. It is my opinion that the original Jack Su£vey had excess in it's east-west distance. This is not uncommon, many of the original surveys have been found to have excess. -2- e east 60 acres, the senior partitioned tract, and the / subsequent two 30 acre tracts were described in varas of 356.4 varas (east-west). 356.4 varas is equal to 990 feet. The south 30 acres of the east 60 acres was conveyed from Record to Harrison, to Burden, to Tafo~ and to Thompson (1896 through 1907). All of the legal descriptions are identical and all of the conveyances were probably made without the benefit of a survey made on ground. No monuments are called for. The north 15 acres of the south 30 acres was conveyed from Thompson to Orum, to Waggoner, to Russell (1907 through 1931) using the same 356.4 varas (east-west). All of these descriptions are identical indicating the possibility of a survey not being made on the ground. No monuments are called for. At some time prior to 1932, a road had been created by useage along the east line of the Jack Survey (now called Denton Tap Road). The Highway Department would call this road Highway No. 40 in 1933. On 10/26/1932, Roy Russell conveyed 15.6 acres of land to J. A. Hanby, et al, Volume 1864, Page 430. This is the first deed calling for more acreage than 15 acres and more distance (east-west) then 356.4 varas or 990 feet. The distance called for being 1,020 feet. The deed begins in the east line of the Jack Survey and the west right-of-way Line of a road. It is my opinion that the discrepancy between 990 feet and 1,020 feet is the result of excess in the original survey and location of the common line between the 60 acre tract and the 100 ac£e tract. It is also my opinion that in 1932 the width of the road along the east line of the Jack Survey was approximately 60 feet in width and that the west right-of-way line of the 60 foot wide road was recognized as the survey line. On January 16, 1933, J. A. Hanby conveyed to the State of Texas 0.07 of an acre of land. This 0.07 of an acre tract "begins in the east line of Hanby's tract and in the east line of the Jack Survey and 50 feet opposite and at right angles to survey station 15 plus 90, 929 feet north of the southeast corner of the Jack Survey". It is important to note that at Station 15 plus 90 the highway department's baseline is in a curve to the southeast. It is my opinion that the plans for the proposed highway and curve were abandoned and never actually constructed. As the parcel described in the paragraph above continues north along the curve, the curve creates a new right-of-way line and by the. time the curve reaches the north line of the 15 acre Hanby tract, the new right-of-way line is now 50 feet from the centerline of the road (50 feet rather than 30 feet) and is 20 feet west of the east line of the Jack Survey. I have measured the distance from the northeast corner of the Boorhem tract and find 50 feet to the apparent centerline of present Denton Tap Road. Ove£ the next 54 years, by useage, the west right-of-way line of Denton Tap Road has been produced south from the north end of the curve near the Boorhem tract's northeast corner. The cu£ve to the southeast does not appear to be on the ground. The road is straight going south. --3-- n locating the west line of the 10.8419 acre tract, I determined the east line of the Shadydale Acres Addition. locate Lawyers Title Company had provided me a copy of a survey made by Wendell Partain and worksheets showing numerous objects recovered along the line in question. These objects included fence posts of various sizes and materials, pipes, "T" irons and iron rods or pins usually used by surveyors. Lawyers Title had also provided me with oral facts concerning the conflict in this area and information conce£ning a survey performed by Powell & Powell on adjacent property to the south of the 10.8419 acre tract. We had a copy of the plat of the Shadydale Acres Addition in our possession. I recovered several iron rods and fence posts in the addition along Shadydale Lane along both the east and the west right-of-way lines of the street. In producing the lot depths (260.57 feet) to the east from the east right-of-way line of Shadydale Lane, we were unable to recover any of the lot corners along the east line of the addition. We did find ourselves in the bottom of a drainage ditch approximately three to four feet deep. We also found fences of various types and at various distances along the top of the west bank of the ditch. The plat of the addition provides a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement parallel to and 20 feet inside the east line of the addition. The plat was originally executed November 5, 1959 and replatted and dated February 29, 1960 by Roy E. McDaniel, Jr., a Registered Public Surveyor. The later plat did not change the lot depths along the east line of the addition. I located the west line of the 10.8419 acre tract and the east line of Shadydale Acres Addition (one and the same) by honoring the monumented east and west right-of-way lines of Shadydale Lane. I made my determination based upon the previous evidence noted above and by a telephone conversation with Mr. Roy E. McDaniel, Jr.. Mr. McDaniel told me that: (1) he had located the east line of Shadydale Acres Addition by coming from the existing west right-of-way line of Denton Tap Road; (2) he could not recall a ditch along the east line of the addition at the time of his survey; (3) he set icon rods (similar to the ones found by me in Shadydale Lane right-of-way line) and that he never set any monuments other than iron rods. He could not remember the size, mayDe as small as 3/8 inch rebar or as large as 5/8 inch rebar; an~ (4) he remembered a discrepancy in the east-west distance of the properties in the area. He remembered the discrepancy to be four to five feet or less. The north line of our survey is 999.25 feet in length. If you add 20 feet (the survey line being approximately 20 feet east of the northeast corner) the total length is 1,019.25 feet or 0.75 of a foot short of the 1,020 feet called for in the Hanby deed. -4- The south line of our survey is 1,001.93 feet in length. If you add the same 20 feet, the total length is 1,021.93 feet or 1.93 feet in excess of the 1,020 feet called for in the Hanby deed. It is my opinion that both of the two above distances are compatible and reasonable based upon the discrepancies of the chain of title of properties in this area over a period of 130 years. It is my opinion that the owners of the tracts or lots situated along the east line of Shadydale Acres Addition followed a very common practice of building their rear or east fences along the top of the west bank of the drainage ditch. Had they attempted to build fences along the center of the ditch and in a westerly direction across the ditch, the fences could not have been maintained, the flow of the drainage would have been obstructed and impeded. Fences along the ditch o£ crossing the ditch, in pact, would probably have been denied by the City of Coppell, Texas in which the addition lies. It is my opinion that none of the original monuments along the east line of the addition remain. The reason, neither the previous surveyors or myself found any original corners of the addition's east line, is that the d~ainage channel was constructed after the corners were staked by Mr. McDaniel, destroying the original monuments. Respectfully submitted, Coy D. Landes R.P.S. No. 1886 January 12, 1987 CDn/jaf