Anyone at the PLSO Conference go to the Right of Entry session by Mary Johnson?
She posed the question... 'do you use the PLSO door hangar or use your own?' Anyone use there own and care to share? I am considering making our own.
I'm not from Oregon ..
but if I was I'd use my own. Even if basically following the society's, I'd have my own printed to make it look as professional as possible (ie no rubber stamps or stuck on labels) and have it say what I wanted the way I wanted - within the requirements of the law.
I'm not from Oregon ..
that is what I was thinking.
> Anyone at the PLSO Conference go to the Right of Entry session by Mary Johnson?
>
> She posed the question... 'do you use the PLSO door hangar or use your own?' Anyone use there own and care to share? I am considering making our own.
PPM,
Glad you went to the conference and glad you sat in on Mary's Class.
We use the PLSO doorhanger together with a business card or send letters. If I were to print my own I would use the same legal information and same "personal notice" requirement of providing the Right of entry but I may add a flyer about our services. A little marketing without violating 820-020-0035 can be a good thing.
I attended the class too. I have done mostly a letter, a few verbals, which does NOT satisfy the law and probably a few other methods, never have used the door hanger.
When I send the letters, there is a page for the landowner to sign and return with check boxes for vehicle, ATV, foot entry, etc. This goes beyond the law, BUT a signed copy from the landowner in your files stating what restrictions if any they impose on entry seems prudent in light of how easy it is to get sideways with the Board on this. Of course this dictates maybe a two week lead time before starting field work and is a process I mostly use on large rural projects where there are many parcels that aren't occupied. I then carry those signed permissions in the vehicle while in the field just in case I am questioned while doing the field work. Even without a right of entry law this would be good professional practice.
RANT MODE ON
What I mostly learned from this class is we as surveyor's would be far better served if this law was repealed in it's entirety and we went back to the old way of business of just asking permission, in 30 years of practice that has NEVER failed to work if you are nice, forcing your way on because you have a law doesn't really make any friends and you are still liable for damages and board sanctions if everything isn't done exact! My question would be how does the average land owner know a particular law like this was violated? My assertion is they don't until lawyering up because they were already fighting with their neighbors well before the surveyor set foot in the neighborhood and we just get caught up in the shotgun approach and hung out to dry.
The latest wrinkle of having to notify every tenant of a rental property is beyond ludicrous and is only an opinion that could of come from an attorney. Notifying the owner of an apartment complex AND the on site manager would seem to be perfectly fine to any reasonable person, BUT now we have to notify every tennant!
I say we need to do ourselves a favor and work to abolish the current law, sometimes you get something that is way worse than nothing when you go through the legislative process.
RANT MODE OFF
SHG
:good:
:good: :good:
In it's current form and interpretation by the AAG, the ROE law is an abomination to surveyors. The apartment complex interpretation as you mention Shelby and the language change from "Notice in Person" to "Personal Notice" a few years ago is also a travesty forced upon surveyors by attorneys in the legislative council.
Shelby,
One shouldn't be too harsh on Mary. She is only ONE attorney. At the OSBEELS session, the same question was asked about notifying EVERY tennant. YUP!!!!!!!!!!
🙁
Geezer
Sorry if this seemed as a rant toward Mary, it is not and I know she was just reporting the news, my problem I guess is with the way this nightmare has unfolded and every year since implementation seems to become more undesirable toward the very very folks that wanted it to start with.
I really honestly believe that Oregon surveyors would be better off without this awful law. The law as written now and further expounded upon by the AG is just a legal mine field. As stated, I think it was very rare to not gain permission for access in the past if you approached adjacent property owners in a professional and polite manner, for those rare denials it would still take less time and cause less problems by going through the proper legal channels to obtain access. I don't think anyone realized the mess this would create or we (collectively) wouldn't have pushed for it a few years ago, I really wasn't a fan at the outset and obviously my position hasn't changed.
SHG
Shelby,
I could't agree with you more. As my "name" suggests, I am old. I started surveying summers after my softmore year of High School, and have been at it ever since. I am licensed in 6 states, (not bragging-just saying, I have been around) and the ONLY time I was denied access to a point I needed, was a few years ago, after sendig a letter to everybody in the neighborhood. I chose NOT to make an issue of it, and located the position from other local work. My point is, that I am confident that had I talked to the owner FIRST, they would have had no problem letting me on their property.
I think the board has changed their minds, on this, but a couple of years ago, I asked a board member if we could just ASK the owner for permission, in lieu of sending a notice or leaving a doorhanger.
His answer, "That would be a violation of law."
On the flip side, I have seen a few cases where a survey crew cut down several 6-8" trees just because they had a good saw. That doesn't help anybody, and it hurts those of us who like to "play well with others."
Deep Breath . . .
I think I feel better after that rant.
(OR " I have learned so much from my mistakes, I think I will make some more today!"
😀
Geezer
Working more in town than out of town these days, it's a problem that has come to a head here with the apartment ruling. Some of the project managers (PE's) even understand the law.... but...
RANT ON...
Better yet, JUST YESTERDAY, I was trying to explain to a project manager (PE) that I needed to notice the owners and tenants in the area of a bridge replacement survey in town because even the GIS shows one side of the bridge within a couple of feet of Right of Way.
Now granted, this was in a conference room, with management present and all. But the response of "we're working within the right of way only, I checked our GIS there's no need to locate R.O.W. on the ground" so no need to notice anyone.
My response was a simple question of "how do we know that the existing improvements on the ground are within the right of way?"
Response was the same "I told you, I checked GIS!". Management (sitting in same meeting) concurred that it (GIS) was adequate location for "topo surveying" (same person who elevated this to "highest priority" status.
Walked away shaking my head on that one.
I do want those fancy new GIS glasses they must be wearing to be able to see the true boundary/right of way locations in relation to the existing improvements. I wonder if they work in the field as well? And you could just look at the ground and see where those darn property and R.O.W. GIS lines are!
That would save me a lot of work digging up monuments, locating, and resolving them against deed and occupation lines !! What notification problems in that case!
OOOPS.. RANT OFF
> My point is, that I am confident that had I talked to the owner FIRST, they would have had no problem letting me on their property.
>
> I think the board has changed their minds, on this, but a couple of years ago, I asked a board member if we could just ASK the owner for permission, in lieu of sending a notice or leaving a doorhanger.
> His answer, "That would be a violation of law."
>
Wow!!!
From the Spring 2013 edition of the OSBEELS "Oregon Examiner" I found this:
"This statute also prohibits land surveyors, their employees or agents from entering land without first complying with the conditions in subsection (4)."
Yep, that stinks!
> I think the board has changed their minds, on this, but a couple of years ago, I asked a board member if we could just ASK the owner for permission, in lieu of sending a notice or leaving a doorhanger.
> His answer, "That would be a violation of law."
>
I attended both Mary's presentation as well as the Board presentation last week at the conference, pretty sure one or both of them indicated that verbal notice was NOT enough, even if you asked permission in person you would still need to hand them a written notice (door hanger, etc.) to satisfy the law. Doesn't sound like a changing of the mind to me...
SHG
I know there was one case before the Board where a fence was over the line onto the client property, reaching over that fence to tie an existing monument constituted trespass because as soon as the range pole was on the monument at least some fraction of the pole was over the line, wonder if the surveyor would of been in trouble if the fence had of been two feet the other way? Technically yes, BUT I bet the complaint would of never been made because the adjoiner would of thought he was gaining two feet of property...
I am of the opinion that most of the complaints are due to some other underlying reason and then things just get shotgunned because the adjoiners are ticked off to start with.
SHG
Shelby,
Another interesting little tid-git from the OSBEELS session was that there is
NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
They did not say what the offense was, but they are currently investigatig and infraction that occurred in 1996.
I guess I shouldn't worry, coz I will be l o n g d e a d by 2030.
😉
G
From reading 672.047(4) it could be interpreted that you would have to give "notice" to your client.
Good grief! How did such language get passed?
I don't understand what you are asking. All the heartburn is over how you give that notice and now not only to the adjacent landowners BUT to the adjacent occupants if they aren't one and the same, no verbal notice will do, if mailing, nothing but 1st class mail, etc., the AG justs keeps giving opinions that make it more restrictive and more cumbersome, I don't think anyone disputes that law or no law it makes good sense to ask permission before entering upon someone's land. My position is this has gotten so convoluted that I think repealing the current law completely would be a better thing that what we have now.
The law does not relieve you of damages now and provides you no more privileges than any other trespasser, in addition it opens the practitioner to a whole lot of repercussions that simple didn't exist prior to this law.
SHG
> I don't understand what you are asking. All the heartburn is over how you give that notice and now not only to the adjacent landowners BUT to the adjacent occupants if they aren't one and the same, no verbal notice will do, if mailing, nothing but 1st class mail, etc., the AG justs keeps giving opinions that make it more restrictive and more cumbersome, I don't think anyone disputes that law or no law it makes good sense to ask permission before entering upon someone's land. My position is this has gotten so convoluted that I think repealing the current law completely would be a better thing that what we have now.
>
> The law does not relieve you of damages now and provides you no more privileges than any other trespasser, in addition it opens the practitioner to a whole lot of repercussions that simple didn't exist prior to this law.
>
> SHG
Shelby,
Generally a right of entry law is necessary and used in the circumstances where a land surveyor cannot obtain permission from the landowner/tenant to cross or go upon his land to access necessary and/or controlling boundary monuments and other evidence. Apparently the Oregon statute overlooked this simple and basic purpose. From the wording and the apparent interpretations, this is the case. What is shocking is that the statute has been interpreted such that a surveyor cannot get "permission" to enter land, you must provide "notice" to enter land. If this is the case, I see nothing in the language of the statute that even allows a surveyor to enter their clients land without "notice" as outlined in the statute.
The apparent requirement that you notify every occupant, not just the landowner, is mind-boggling. For example, in an apartment complex, to even cross the lawn (which is generally NOT owned by the occupants) without notice to potentially hundreds of "occupants" is to mildly put it "over-burdening".
> I don't understand what you are asking. All the heartburn is over how you give that notice and now not only to the adjacent landowners BUT to the adjacent occupants if they aren't one and the same, no verbal notice will do, if mailing, nothing but 1st class mail, etc., the AG justs keeps giving opinions that make it more restrictive and more cumbersome, I don't think anyone disputes that law or no law it makes good sense to ask permission before entering upon someone's land. My position is this has gotten so convoluted that I think repealing the current law completely would be a better thing that what we have now.
>
> The law does not relieve you of damages now and provides you no more privileges than any other trespasser, in addition it opens the practitioner to a whole lot of repercussions that simple didn't exist prior to this law.
>
> SHG
So, I guess in Oregon, you have to know ahead of time which controlling monuments you will need and hopefully find before getting started with the survey? If you don't find the monument you need, stop the survey, start notifying the next set of owners for the next monument down the line? Repeat as many times as it takes to get the survey done?
Yes that is pretty much it!
SHG
