The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-01-28

! question Of considerable inporsanre
10 property holders in Uniontovn. d e
has been raised. which may necessta-e Q
re-survey OF the subdivision to deter
mine where The division fences between
tie lots should be located The contrn-
yeTsey was started by a letter from Ms.
Ida L. McLaren. CT WATERBURY. Na. IN
her letter to the Commissioners Mrs Mo
Laren claimed that the froutages on Har-
rIs0u Street Of lots 577 ana SIS are IN
correctly entered on plats and she asked
for refund oc overpayments OF general
taxes in consequence thereof.
The letter Of HE~s McLaren having been
referred 10 the Surveyor. he has reror. ed
to the Commissioners the facts in the
case together with q map showing the &C
, tual survey. The Surveyor states that It
appears from the report of his assistant
that so far as buildings are concerned
they are located on this block in conform
itE with the recorded plat from Taylor
Street eastward to the east line OF lot
SIS. The Surveyor points out that accord
| ing 10 The assessment books lots 5JS. 59a
and 660 are assessed in the name Of John
P SEeprerd. while 81 and 5I8 are as
sessed against Mrs 5icLaren. thus mas
I ing clean break betseen the two on the
west line OF lot SOS
The Surveyor calls attention 10 he plat
on which Z fence Is shown go feet east
CT the vest line Of Taylor Street, or about
i feet west Of the west line OF lot
59S, while Z fence also stands at 216 or
Is feet TO the westward The latter -he
Surveyor says. conforms to the record,
While The former is Z feet too far west
Il this fence Is pulled y feet east, where
the Surveyor believes it belongs, both
Saepperd and MRS. NcLaren's holdings
would conform TO record. and Mrs. Nc
LarCn's frontage would De IS feet or TWO
, lots = feet wide SHEPHERDS east fence.
I the surveyor says. IS about y feet toe
| far west, which would. of course, leave
| him sbcrJ, # the west fence we're moved
east. Continuing, The report of the Sur
/ YeEor states:
And from Shepperd's lots eastward
everything is apparently showed i feet
/ mere or less TOO far west. ] can account
Ser his only in enc way 4 map is on
tie here showing q Position on Taylor
Street quite different from is p resent and
'}-'LH-'l Gt7-Ai's-s l--AS Id Als= H. q
IN 1871. and was not followed as to Iay-
I lcr Street in Jae record OF Uni0nto,eI.
made IN 1873 and 3 hich uU5- zlyc-c- l.
making the change II Is seen IN add NJ
up the fronts that lot 598 Of the record
IS placed exactly z feet further east
than lot SIS OF mis- older plat wnIea
must have been followed II the Ioca tio1
on the ground cf The houses and fences
east ot and including the Shepperd prop
cry.
II Nr. ShePpc-d objects TO moving the
fence vest OF HIN twelve feet eastward
where i wcuId bc placed by any survey
Unat this CfiCe Is hereafter called upon to
. make, respectfully suggest that I'll the
/ parties Al interest get together ard re
subiiyide IN such a way IS 10 satisfy all
/ and 10 provide new record lots conforming
/ 70 the holdings / am using this method
/ in similar cases al over the District with
| s. tisfaction TO the parties involved as
! well IS to the authorities
/ 1t also appears that Richard and Cath
/ eTire Foot ct al are assessed for lots 6e5
AID 6C5 On Harrison Street. with an as
/ sessed area fer lot Geo showing thirty-six
! feet front This Is erroneous as compared
With the record. and as a fact their west
/ fence : twelve feet TOO far west, accord
! ing to the record