Flip side for some, this may be some good marketing in an area that you have already solved a part of the puzzle.
We've had to do something similar in Idaho for a few years now, mainly dealing with access rights.?ÿ We work on very large and sometimes very small projects.?ÿ I have sent out thousands of letters and received only a handful of calls.?ÿ It's not that much of an issue.
@jflamm No, Tennessee is not a mandatory recording state. Usually recording of surveys is only mandated by mortgage companies, title insurance companies, and regulatory commissions.
@wa-id-surveyor But what about costs to send out those letters. We are not talking about first-class usps mail here. The wording in the bill is certified. Thousands of certified letters becomes expensive.
...where the surveyor has to notify the adjoiner of an apparent major discrepancy...
?ÿ
Makes me wonder what the threshold is for "major discrepancy"?
?ÿ
Everyone has their own opinion, but you better hope yours is more strict than the board.
?ÿ
I mean, I understand the idea behind this.?ÿ But aren't there, better, ways to serve public notice to the landowners than this?
Is TN a mandatory recording state??ÿ If not, maybe that is a better way.
Exactly. This could have been avoided if Tennessee land surveyors didn't have the the self defeating idea that surveys shouldn't be recorded?ÿ?ÿ
The public is not served by secret boundary surveys. This is a blundering attempt to fix that. Just require recording.?ÿ
?ÿ
I mean, I understand the idea behind this.?ÿ But aren't there, better, ways to serve public notice to the landowners than this?
Is TN a mandatory recording state??ÿ If not, maybe that is a better way.
Exactly. This could have been avoided if Tennessee land surveyors didn't have the the self defeating idea that surveys shouldn't be recorded?ÿ?ÿ
The public is not served by secret boundary surveys. This is a blundering attempt to fix that. Just require recording. It will be cheaper than sending certified mail to all the adjoined and spending time answering their calls.
?ÿ
@wa-id-surveyor We were careful to give the surveyor mulitiple options for notice and avoid 'certified mail'. This proposal is horrible...
Last week I??m at a section corner a mile from the project and it kind of scares the property owners, is there a problem? Inaccuracies? I just had a survey, is it wrong? Fortunately Nick did some deft diplomacy and property owner education on the fly.
The section corner was right where I expected to find it, no problem. BLM tied into it on a dependent resurvey approved in 2016 as a faithful perpetuation of the original. It is a San Bernardino County Surveyor monument.
The public is not served by secret boundary surveys. This is a blundering attempt to fix that. Just require recording.?ÿ
I could not agree more with your first sentence.?ÿ Secret boundary surveys should not be occurring.
I'm also well in favor of a recording requirement (not as a means of forgoing contacting the neighbors, but for several other reasons).
What practical good does recording do to inform a neighboring property owner that the surveyor has decided the line is in this spot versus that spot??ÿ Do they now need to not only keep an eye on their physical property lines, but also make a yearly pilgrimage to the recorders office to beat their paper bounds as well.?ÿ For many people, that is not something they will be doing.?ÿ So, recording (without specifically notifying the neighbor) doesn't seem too far from a secret survey to me.
Exactly. This could have been avoided if Tennessee land surveyors didn't have the the self defeating idea that surveys shouldn't be recorded?ÿ?ÿ
The public is not served by secret boundary surveys. This is a blundering attempt to fix that. Just require recording.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
While I'm sure that there are TN land surveyors opposed to recording every survey, the issue just isn't that straight forward.?ÿ In fact the rules in place make it near impossible to record a map unless you're creating a subdivision.
In Tennessee when they created the ability for counties and local jurisdictions to implement planning they defined a "Subdivision" as being any division of land that results in one or more parcels that are less than 5 acres. I'm glossing over details, but the gist is that when you create something less than five acres you're subject to Planning and recording a plat.?ÿ An unintended result was that the Planning Departments have convinced the County Registers (where we record maps) that maps can only be recorded with Planning Department approval.?ÿ This ignores the fact that we should be able to record "Exempt Maps" for surveys creating lots greater than 5 acres.?ÿ Some Registers allow this and others insist that it go through planning.?ÿ Some Registers are so afraid to record a map without planning approval that they have stripped exhibits for boundary line agreements or easements from deeds prior to recording.?ÿ This leaves you with a deed often with no description of the agreed line or easement that was being created.?ÿ
I would give anything if I could easily record a map every time I complete a survey of a property that has a poorly described boundary, easement, or other defect in the deed.?ÿ I hate knowing that if the owner doesn't hold on to my map or have their deed updated to reflect the results of the survey that my work will effectively disappear at some point and likely someone else will have to re-solve the same issues all over again in the future.
?ÿ
I'd say this a great opportunity for the NSPS and the Tennessee board to get together and figure out how to enforce the rules of law that bind the Survey statutes and slap the hands of the planning and unlicensed personnel from over stepping.?ÿ Complacency has really killed our impact and degraded what this profession actually provides to the community and public at large. Whenever I see AICP, I cringe a little because I know that the majority of those people think they know everything that there is to know about lots and parcels and GIS and dare I say land survey. In discussion with them, only the really well seasoned and long term people actually understood the relationship, but even then there's an intractable belief that sucey is just a necessary evil that will eventually be replaced by phones and computers.
ymmv.
@stephen-ward Sounds like a much larger set of problems which are not be adequately addressed by this proposed legislation.
This could have been avoided if Tennessee land surveyors didn't have the the self defeating idea that surveys shouldn't be recorded?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
I think you have this backwards, no one is saying that plats shouldn't be recorded.?ÿ The resistance is to a new rule which must then be enforced.?ÿ The idea that all surveys should be recorded is novel and still needs to be assessed in full considerations of the power it gives to Planners and Review Officers to continually raise rates and add more and more and more requirements to be met as a condition of approval.
I would only push for mandatory recording if the board of licensure for PLSs was solely in control of the criteria for what is considered a recordable plat.?ÿ Even then it diminishes the a PLS by turning him into a quasi-administrator.?ÿ
The term "secret survey" is just silly.?ÿ Nothing ever prevents a person for paying a knowledgeable person for sharing their knowledge.?ÿ While it may be true that within the PLSS an erroneous corner has the potential to harm more land owners than in the Colonial system, I still don't see this as a reason to preclude people from coveting knowledge of what my be their most valuable asset.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
I can't tell if this law is dumb or accidentally brilliant.
It seems dumb in that notifying them after the fact doesn't really do anyone any good.?ÿ But it also seems brilliant in that it could punish the surveyor that doesn't speak with the adjoiner(s) prior to conducting the survey (which is what we should be doing).
Either way it's still worse than passing a simple recording law, imo.
