Approximate Corners

Professionsals only provide professional service. Setting approximate corners is not a professional service.

Oregon is my state as well. I can tell you this about "approximate corners". The board doesn't like it much, but can't do much about it. So if there is a complaint they will examine every part of your work and nail you for any shortcoming that they can find. I can't see that there is enough money in this kind of work to make it worth the risk.

If somebody made hubs and stakes that would dissolve in about a week this would be a good use for them. An alternative to setting approx. temp. corners is to locate the building foundation on the lot and show offsets to the property line on your map.

IMO, it is unfortunate that the perfect has become the enemy of the good in Oregon boundary work. With some County Surveyors making it so difficult, and therefore expensive, to get a R.O.S. whipped into what they consider recordable condition (to say nothing of the $500 recording fee) they have created this temporary corner monster. But god bless Americans for always having a way to work around bad gov't policy at hand.

An approximate corner? That doesn't even make sense. If all you need is an approximate corner then you sure as hell don't need me out there. 😄

"An approximate corner? That doesn’t even make sense."

It's a euphemism for non-permanent corner. Oregon law requires that a record of survey be prepared and filed when "permanent corners" are set. It further defines that iron rods and pipes are to be set as such "permanent corners". So wood hubs, or just about anything else, set for corners are consider non-permanent and the Record of Survey requirement is avoided. In this part of the country a wood hub of common lumber material will
last no longer than 2 years in ground contact. Beyond that you may not
even find a stain. Because they are non-permanent and are not going to be recorded guys cut the corners further and - *presto* - the approximate corner is born. Nevertheless, the standard of care for one of these is about the equal to what a full boundary survey got in Oklahoma. Precalc, jump on a couple of found monuments, ray in the corner.

Today I was trying to figure out what a 'plot plan' is and then what is the difference to a 'certified plot plan' as I get these requests. I have always thought it was some kind of lingo that people hear from each other. You know. like at the barber shop. Well... and because I get requests for these.

A lawyer explained that a plot plan is an approximate plan where survey measurements are not made. It is used to get a 'visual' of the property, to tell if there are encroachments and to show if the buildings meet the zoning set back requirements.

A certified plot plan differs because it is the result of survey measurements. Oh, you mean a survey?

I told him I would never make a plot plan. You can disclaim all you want, but in the end you are fooling the client. You are not fooling yourself.

When did ethical decisions become so confusing for some people?

I know of a surveyor who set wood stakes at corners, reasoning that since he was not setting a real monument he didn't have to file a record of survey. The SBTR didn't see it that way, and it cost him $$$.

I'm sure it depends on the exact wording of the statutes. The matter has come before our board and the practice grows.

When I was a crew chief, I set a subdivision worth of wood stakes at "approximate corners" for the builder to use for sales purposes (final corners to be set after the fine grading was compete.) A couple of weeks later I was back at the site and noticed the superintendent had driven 18" rebars at each "approximate" corner location.

When I got back to the office and told the PLS he casually called the builder and said that he had 24 hours to yank them all and leave them in a pile by the construction trailer. He was going to come by and count them. If there was a rebar for each "approximate" stake we had set, then he wasn't going to report them to the state board for unlicensed practice.

This site is something. This morning I was on the phone with a colleague who is on "vacation" at the beach. He recently retired and began a monologue about local surveyors setting "approximate corners" with lath in the town he did most of his surveying in. I'd never heard of such a thing and he hadn't either.

It's only useful for pre-graded subdivisions, to be followed up with the real thing.

In a construction setting, specifically when working on a plat, when I first started, we used to set "Temp Corners" using hub and lath, that was 20+ years ago. We stopped being instructed to do that, perhaps the law changed, it would have been before I paid attention that sort of thing.

Now, if the work is preliminary in nature, you can hold off recording a survey, but my stance is that if someone is going to rely on a mark I set to determine their boundary, the material used is not the relevant issue (hub, paint dot, mag nail, rebar, concrete monument, whatever).

"When I was a crew chief, I set a subdivision worth of wood stakes at “approximate corners” for the builder to use for sales purposes (final corners to be set after the fine grading was compete.) A couple of weeks later I was back at the site and noticed the superintendent had driven 18″ rebars at each “approximate” corner location.

When I got back to the office and told the PLS he casually called the builder and said that he had 24 hours to yank them all and leave them in a pile by the construction trailer. He was going to come by and count them. If there was a rebar for each “approximate” stake we had set, then he wasn’t going to report them to the state board for unlicensed practice."

A bit of an over-reaction there, perhaps? I would have offered to come out and shoot each rebar and make that the corner on my plat. Making money off an ass is much more fun than putting them in their place.

"my stance is that if someone is going to rely on a mark I set to determine their boundary, the material used is not the relevant issue"

It's not up to you to define these things. You can adopt your own personal policy - so have I - but you can't impose it on others.

Washington's recording law is worded differently from Oregon's. In Washington you are supposed to record if you establish "a corner which materially varies from the description of record" (RCW 58.09.040, RCW 58.04.090). The WA board has ruled that a missing monument of record is such a material variance. What exactly does "establish a corner" mean? Could it include calculating its position and showing it on a map? I think perhaps it does. So basically every time you search for a corner and fail to find it you should be recording a survey. Right. That happens.

Oregon's law calls for a record when "the surveyor establishes or reestablishes a boundary monument" (ORS 209.250), and defines “monument” as "any permanent material object ..." (ORS 209.005(5)).. Those added words makes a lot of difference.

It’s not up to you to define these things. You can adopt your own personal policy – so have I – but you can’t impose it on others.

People have the right to be wrong. 😜

But, the reliance of an owner on a certain understanding of a points location will, over time, certainly make a location of the line permanent. That is the basis of my comment.

And, I only claim knowledge about WA. Just about the only time I think of Oregon is when I read Norman's comments. It is fine state as long as you drive for a few hours away from I-5, much like WA.

So basically every time you search for a corner and fail to find it you should be recording a survey. Right. That happens.

No, this not what the law says. "Establish" clearly means laying the line or corner out on the ground.

See 58.09.020: "Survey" shall mean the locating and monumenting (it does not say OR monumenting).