Thank you for your question.
Please describe the situation a little more. A diagram or plat depicting the property and surrounding roads would be helpful.
This is more of a geometry than a calculus question. Please post a diagram and I will ask the site to move this to math experts if I don't see a simple answer.
Some of the lines look wavy or curved in the diagram. Are they all supposed to be straight lines? Does any lie run due N-S or E-W?
Is the E line 540 or 542?
You want a front lot and a rear lot, is that correct?
Thank you for using the site. This is quite an interesting problem.
I have looked at both diagrams that you attached. The first one showed bearings on two of the existing property lines, although only one was readable when I printed it out. Do you have bearings for all five property lines? The angles will make a difference in the area calculations.
Also, do you have any preference about the angle that the new property line meets the 200 foot and 80 foot lines at? For example, at the "front" road, does the new property line need to be perpendicular to the roadway?
It may also turn out that there are multiple solutions, given that the two "new" property lines aren't really constrained, other than having to have one end at the midpoint of an existing property line, and meeting at the other end. If there are any preferences about the shapes of the two new lots, that information might be helpful in narrowing things down to a single solution.
Ok, no problem. Whenever you can get the bearings, I can proceed. There are some surveying techniques for calculating areas of weird shapes like this, but the bearing of each line is needed.
Alright, sounds good. :)
I'm sorry about the delay in replying to you. I had to leave my desk for a time.
Given the irregular shape of the parcel, the lengths and bearings of each of the five sides will be needed to calculate the areas. Without that information, I can't even total area of the existing parcel.
Is there a new diagram?
We're making progress.
Do you have bearings for the 200' and 80' sides? It looks like there is one for the centerline of the (presumed) roadway along the 200 ft side.
If I could get the bearing for the roadway along the 200 foot side, then I can figure out the bearing for the 80 foot side.
I need the bearings to determine the coordinates of the corner points of the existing boundary.
I'm sorry about the delay in replying to you. I was not aware that you had posted a reply.
I was hoping that you would be able to get the bearing for the street shown at the bottom of the diagram. I can see where there is a bearing recorded, but it is cut off in the portion that you sent. I'll see what I can do with the information available.
161 80´ is the length of the side of the adjacent lot (Lot 7). In the lower left is the last part of a bearing for the dashed centerline of the street. It looks like it ends with an "E".
I'll see if I can figure it out mathematically, but it will take several calculations to do that.
After a lot of calculations and some computer programming, I believe that the missing bearing for the roadway to the south of the lot should be very close to N 72º 47' E. From the portion of the bearing that was shown in the diagram, it appears that the last two digits are either 17 or 47, and the above bearing gave me the closest accuracy in closing the entire traverse around the lot. If the value that you get back from the assessor is different from this, then I might need to recalculate the results given below.
Once I had that, I was able to calculate the current area of the lot: 123,604 square feet, or around 2.8 acres.
There are likely a variety of points that would work to divide the lot into two equal portions. I somewhat arbitrarily selected a point along the line running due east from the intersection of the 314.3 foot and 353.77 foot boundaries on the west side of the property, and then determined how far from that corner point you would have to move to set a marker that divides the lot.
Here are three bearings:
1) From the intersection of the 314.3 foot and 353.77 foot sides: Due east, 140.447 feet
2) From the midpoint of the 200 foot boundary: N 18º 33' W, 309.86 feet
3) From the midpoint of the 80 foot boundary: S 15º 31' W, 276.69 feet
Please let me know if you have any additional questions about this.
Yes, I'll send you a diagram as soon as I can.
I have attached the new diagram showing the subdivided lot. (A link will appear following this message.)
The shape of these two lots may not be precisely what you had in mind. As I mentioned, I arbitrarily set the point of intersection to be along the line that extends east from the westernmost point of the property. If you want to adjust the shapes of the lots in some way, I would need some direction or indication as to additional constraints.
Yes. Down to a few square feet, depending on the accuracy of the actual surveying.
I would advise you to check the bearing I calculated (N 72 deg 47 min E) against what the assessor has on file before you pay anybody to go out and set a marker. If there is a difference then I would need to re-calculate the dividing lines.
Ok, sounds good.
Awww, shucks... :)
N 23 deg 56 min W is the bearing of the line between Lot 3 and Lot 7. That one was shown clearly on the original map.
What we need is the bearing of the centerline of the roadway that runs along the south side of the property.
Yaaaay. I was pretty sure I had it right, just because it was the only bearing that fit. But it's nice to have it confirmed.
I'll get those other numbers to you as soon as I can. I'll have to do some calculating to get them, and I'm away from my desk at the moment.
I have attached an updated diagram of the lot division. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to help you with this.
I sent a message to the category moderator regarding the rating issue. There doesn't seem to be anything that I can do on my end to cause the system to deliver a new email message to you. Don't worry about it though, I'm sure it will get straightened out eventually.
Oh, ok. Thank you for that. I don't see any indication of that on my end (yet), so it may just be a while before the system catches up.