The phenomenon of 'over checking' does not relate to the mere existence of a County Surveyor or review policy. If that were the case we would not have problems with it in States where no review authority exists.
One of the Counties I work in has an unlicensed tech who tears apart every map he sees. He has no authority to review, but he badgers folks to the point of filing Board complaints. Many change their maps or acquiesce just to shut him up. I saw one poor guy return and do 2 days of field work an redraw his map for no good reason at all.
On the flip side I know I can call our County Surveyor any time to bend his ear with a question. He will work directly with you researching old notes or Statutes. His influence on the local quality of work is fantastic.
At the end of all this is the frustration of looking at garbage maps (all bearing one of a few seals). They sit on the edge of the law and undercut those who do good work. With no authority to say boo, the junk keeps rolling off the plotter. Not good enough to use, not bad enough to prosecute. This is where a limited review could start a conversation. Some of these guys might appreciate it, others will just whine.
Again, 50 States and a lot more Counties equals a lot of different scenarios. Each has to find the line between free for all and handing somebody a club to beat them with...
On the flip side I know I can call our County Surveyor any time to bend his ear with a question. He will work directly with you researching old notes or Statutes. His influence onthe local quality of work is fantastic.
We had one like that for a decade or so, but a couple of years ago he was forced into retirement and replaced by a series of consultants. The current consultant doesn't reside in the county and has no access to the county records. He has shown a very light touch in map reviews, but I dearly miss the deep knowledge of local surveying practice that our homegrown former CS had.
Half the land is recorded without review, the other half is registered with the Land Court where it is reviewed by the Engineering Department...
In Alaska, there is no review requirement for a ROS. The goal of the statute is to facilitate the publication of data related to boundaries. Reviews tend to hinder/impede the filing of ROSes. All ROSes are filed at the State Recorder's Office.
I'm licensed in 8 states, and I am unaware of any recording requirement in any of them. However, a couple of the states require corner records on PLS corners.
Tommy Young, post: 333525, member: 703 wrote: I'm licensed in 8 states, and I am unaware of any recording requirement in any of them. However, a couple of the states require corner records on PLS corners.
Ok Tommy, you are just the guy I have been hoping to bump into about my magazine article; I would really appreciate knowing your 8 states that have no recording law (or county surveyor review of a survey plat map for that matter)
I understand it is common in all the public lands states to have "corner records" to replace sectional land corners. Do you also use a corner record for multi-purpose use like in other states ?, for ex., use a corner record to document what you did on a survey of a non- public lands property.
SC has no statewide recording requirements, as mentioned above by Tommy Young, but each individual county does IF you are creating a new parcel or road. Every county I've been in you have to have this approval or an "Exemption Statement" on your plat. They all look at the same things for the most part; size (now sewer or water-minimum 1/4 acre, one or the other-minimum25,000 SF, neither-minimum 1 ac) and road frontage (20' for county rd and 50' for state rd). From that they all branch off into their own little nuances they require (too mundane to list, but I will if you'd like).
celestialpawn11, post: 332981, member: 10351 wrote: Warren: from the comments that come from our particular county surveyor department, it is the general opinion of the practitioners I have talked to, that we are being told "how to survey", not just requests for further explanations. Our particular Co. LS has stated that one of his functions is "mentoring", he is particularly interested in mentoring newly licensed persons, but from his input, he is actually "mentoring" everyone. But "mentoring" or training is not in the Professional Land Surveyor's Act, Section 8700-8805
Kind of like when a surveyor is hired to survey a property line between two lots in a block and the surveyor traverses around the block and discovers that the monuments for all the block corners are missing due to right-of-way construction. And the surveyor simply tells his client, this is the best I can do since the block monuments are missing and "it's the cities fault"! And another surveyor is hired and upon encountering the same field conditions, extends his survey to find additional monuments to adjacent blocks within the same subdivision to support his rationale for re-establishing the boundary.
Yeah, no mentoring necessary for that first surveyor, huh?
Norman Oklahoma, post: 332976, member: 9981 wrote: You may have overstated the power of the County Surveyor in Oregon to affect the resolution shown on a Record of Survey. Strictly speaking, they don't have any such power over routine boundary surveys. Mostly they just ask you to fully explain and justify your resolution on the map, which can sometimes lead you to making a change yourself.
Mark hit the nail on the head. I truly appreciate the review process Oregon has and the setup of a county surveyor. Their office handles lots of Public questions about surveying from both jurisdictional clients and general land owners. They also provide a Statutory review of what is needed to be shown on a survey. Many times they may catch a situation where a surveyor was unaware of a particular record that should be reviewed or incorporated. They are the first line of defense in defending the profession and explaining the profession to others and they provide a high ranking voice for surveyors at the state level. IMHO, Oregon "Has it right!"
Jered McGrath PLS, post: 356566, member: 794 wrote: Mark hit the nail on the head. I truly appreciate the review process Oregon has and the setup of a county surveyor. Their office handles lots of Public questions about surveying from both jurisdictional clients and general land owners. They also provide a Statutory review of what is needed to be shown on a survey. Many times they may catch a situation where a surveyor was unaware of a particular record that should be reviewed or incorporated. They are the first line of defense in defending the profession and explaining the profession to others and they provide a high ranking voice for surveyors at the state level. IMHO, Oregon "Has it right!"
In total agreement with Mark and Jered,
Nobody tells us jersey guys what to do! We make decisions and the stuff never gets reviewed by anyone. It's good in some ways and bad in others. The only things that ever get filed are final plat major subdivisions.
Deed descriptions and boundary line agreements get filed too, but they usually end up getting severed from the survey documents strangely enough. Some jerk copies the legal description out and omits the map. I've seen it a million times.
The other thing that drives me absolutely bonkers is when they will file the description of an easement under the lot and block number, but remove the description of the overall parcel thus removing the real description from the chain of title. That is becoming rampant, and it sometimes becomes impossible to track down the document you actually need.
In the "newbie" thread I told of my frustration yesterday of working from numerous filed surveys to attempt to reconstruct the key tracts for my current project only to discover 10 capped monuments with no matching survey on file. I cannot imagine going forth every time with no prior surveys to guide me. I have to tolerate that foolishness in a couple of counties where the predominate surveyors for decades thought everything they did was top secret and that is bad enough. Aimlessly wandering around multiple blocks searching at every potential lot line along the streets and alleys hoping to find something to hang my hat on is a gigantic waste of time.:pissed::pissed::pissed::pissed::pissed:
