I believe the right thing to do first is contact the other surveyor- I want to hear his take on this survey- I need all the facts before reporting, altho the plat that was submitted to the lender as the final survey has issues I think the Board would be interested in seeing.
Maybe not
Well, maybe in your corner of the world a non-conforming lot is a non-issue - but not in my corner of the world. Around here 75' minimum means 75' - 74.9 is not good enough. And a hunk of iron found in the wrong place is not necessarily a corner especially in a small lot subdivision - maybe the surveyor set it wrong? maybe the fence builder moved it? maybe the power company moved it when they placed a pole? maybe a whole lot of possibilities.
But in some areas zoning & subdivision mean what they say. One of the most extreme examples I have heard of (not my survey) a surveyor was asked to divide a lot that the subdivision plat said was 5.00 acres. When he turned it in for approval the zoning guy ran a check and determined that it was 5 square feet short. He refused to allow the division. Some of us have to deal with more precision than others across the country. It's not one set of rules apply to all.
Maybe not
Does your area not have the concept of existing non-conforming? I understand a new lot being required to meet all the requirements but fail to see how an approved lot can be truly in violation of zoning. I am not challenging you but I am unsure of the rationale of holding zoning requirements over original found monuments just for the sake of zoning.
Maybe not
Dave,
I'm not arguing that point. No one says you have to accept whatever you find in the ground. If it's not good enough, then prove out the survey to show that the lot has it's 75 feet. But if there are clearly original monuments at either end that would lead you to prorate a shortage across all the lots then IT IS WHAT IT IS.
Andy
Thanks for posting this RA. Could you at least post the Map Facet Number for those of us playing the home game?
I'm not going to make any judgements, and don't have a dog in this fight, but I do know that different parts of town, different subdivisions...all have their own issues depending. Sometimes more info is helpful with some of the disconnects.
Maybe not
> Well, maybe in your corner of the world a non-conforming lot is a non-issue - but not in my corner of the world. Around here 75' minimum means 75' - 74.9 is not good enough. And a hunk of iron found in the wrong place is not necessarily a corner especially in a small lot subdivision - maybe the surveyor set it wrong? maybe the fence builder moved it? maybe the power company moved it when they placed a pole? maybe a whole lot of possibilities.
>
In my corner of the world a non-conforming lot is a serious issue. Likewise, a lot that was approved as conforming does not become non-conforming just because of the indisputable fact that neither the original or the retracing surveyor can measure and stake perfectly. Zoning rules do not change property boundary law. A controlling monument does not become non-controlling just because an il-informed bureaucrat (or surveyor) declares it to be so.
It is our job to prove the hunk of iron either is or isn't where the boundary corner is, and that proof needs to be more than mere measurements. I'm not sure where you are getting the inference that disturbed and/or moved corners are controlling, has anyone asserted such a silly position?
> But in some areas zoning & subdivision mean what they say. One of the most extreme examples I have heard of (not my survey) a surveyor was asked to divide a lot that the subdivision plat said was 5.00 acres. When he turned it in for approval the zoning guy ran a check and determined that it was 5 square feet short. He refused to allow the division. Some of us have to deal with more precision than others across the country. It's not one set of rules apply to all.
That is a perfect example of both the surveyor and the bureaucrat not knowing the law, not to mention the proper use of significant figures. It is really sad that the landowners have to suffer the consequences of the ignorance and arrogance of people in which they have entrusted the safe keeping of their property and rights.
Somebody deserves a good old Texas hanging
The type of foolishness described is precisely what the BOR should be going after instead of fretting about minor little things like type size and lack of a graphical scale. This is what makes everyone involved with the land surveying profession look like no-nothing, moneygrubbers. There is no excuse worthy of being heard.
"fence post at corner"
[sarcasm]Sounds more like one of the professionals found a fence corner and decided everyone relied on the fence so it is now the corner.[/sarcasm]
If it was one of those heinous 'measurement technicians' there would be a pin cushion in place with notes on the plat calling the iron found as being in the incorrect location - not a call for some object other than the undiscovered pin as the corner.
Maybe not
> It is our job to prove the hunk of iron either is or isn't where the boundary corner is, and that proof needs to be more than mere measurements.
I like the way that is stated! Sounds much more correct than having to only prove that it isn't the corner.
email me- I would be glad to give you the link if interested.
I have also read BLM official field notes where an existing private surveyor monument was rejected that was about 2 links away for their determined protracted line position and yet did not set a new monument at their location. Only a call in the field notes for the "true" corner position.
So what does the landowner's see as their boundary?
Keith
well in the rear the iron rods are now marked by me- in the front, the other surveyor placed a "pin flag", one of those 18" wire with 4" red flag attached (looks like one of those above ground utility locate markers)marking the position of the iron rods he found but apparently did not accept.
This might be a case where the survey firm has arrived at one fantastic, perfect solution to where all corners in the subdivision are supposed to be. Shiny coordinates exist for each ideal corner. Compare your reading to the pre-loaded shiny coordinate to determine the error of everything found except for the controlling corners on the outer boundary of the subdivision.
Maybe not
There is also the problem that if he did not agree with what he found, that he did not note or show any of that on their drawing as being out of position or other reasoning.
I've heard the reasoning "I did not show that because I decided that it was not found or I decided it was not relevant to my survey.
0.02
"..controlling corners on the outer boundary of the subdivision."
One thing about being field crew, is you learn something new everyday. 🙂
Maybe not
> Well, maybe in your corner of the world a non-conforming lot is a non-issue - but not in my corner of the world. Around here 75' minimum means 75' - 74.9 is not good enough. And a hunk of iron found in the wrong place is not necessarily a corner especially in a small lot subdivision - maybe the surveyor set it wrong? maybe the fence builder moved it? maybe the power company moved it when they placed a pole? maybe a whole lot of possibilities.
>
> But in some areas zoning & subdivision mean what they say. One of the most extreme examples I have heard of (not my survey) a surveyor was asked to divide a lot that the subdivision plat said was 5.00 acres. When he turned it in for approval the zoning guy ran a check and determined that it was 5 square feet short. He refused to allow the division. Some of us have to deal with more precision than others across the country. It's not one set of rules apply to all.
If they are original corners set by the original surveyor of the subdivision they hold. If the monumented dimensions end up being 74.8 x 75.2...then so be it. Irregardless, the platted document doesn't change...at least that's the way it works around here. The lot dimensions don't officially change until the plat is modified and that's a very painful process around here.
Maybe not
> But in some areas zoning & subdivision mean what they say. One of the most extreme examples I have heard of (not my survey) a surveyor was asked to divide a lot that the subdivision plat said was 5.00 acres. When he turned it in for approval the zoning guy ran a check and determined that it was 5 square feet short. He refused to allow the division. Some of us have to deal with more precision than others across the country. It's not one set of rules apply to all.
Here's what JB Stahl said about size and dimensions of a parcel. Of course how do you argue with a 'zoning guy'?
> Questions regarding the land area are questions which need to be asked when the boundary is created. The parent parcel is divided with the intent of meeting those requirements. A lot intended to be 10,000 square feet, shown to be 10,000 square feet and approved to be 10,000 square feet. A parcel created to meet the 5 acre agricultural exemption is 5 acres by intent to comply with the law.
> With all that intent in mind, show me one surveyor who can set lot corners to the perfection we seem to expect from one another but ourselves can never achieve. Then show me one landowner who can maintain that perfection throughout the history of their occupation. We are expecting an impossibility that the law does not require.
> When making an original survey, those questions are valid. During a retracement survey, your measurement of the property will not change the property status from compliant to non-compliant.
> JBS
If I am reading this right, John is saying that the original deed or original survey sets the size and dimensions of the parcel. Our measurements are simply our measurements at a point in time and with a different set of instruments from when the survey was created. But I'm not sure how I would explain that and/or how well I interpreted what Mr. Stahl is saying.
Maybe not
> > It is our job to prove the hunk of iron either is or isn't where the boundary corner is, and that proof needs to be more than mere measurements.
>
> I like the way that is stated! Sounds much more correct than having to only prove that it isn't the corner.
Actually, in many situations the existing "monument" is presumed to be correct, and we then look for both kinds of evidence, that which will either support or reverse the presumption of correctness.
92.050 Requirements of survey and plat of subdivision and partition. (1) A person shall not submit a plat of a subdivision or partition for record, until all the requirements of ORS 209.250 and the plat requirements of the subdivision or partition have been met.
(2) The survey for the plat of the subdivision or partition shall be done in a manner to achieve sufficient accuracy that measurements may be taken between monuments within one-tenth of a foot or one ten-thousandth of the distance shown on the subdivision or partition plat, whichever is greater.
Wonder what this means when you find that monument 0.2' out, if not set to specs, are you obligated to hold it? If you hold a monument not meeting these specs, are you stealing and giving away land you have no right to? Occupation and improvements may change ownership but does it change platted lot lines? If no harm done should you correct a monument not meeting the specs it was to meet when set? Don't
think one size fits all, or does it?
jud
I'm still looking for and waiting for the court decision that rejects an undisturbed, relied upon, original monument solely because it wasn't set within the tolerances of some standard of precise measurement. When that happens I guess all of us will be demoted to the status of mere technicians and licenses will no longer be necessary.
[sarcasm]The upside would be, at least then we would be out from under the thumb of the engineering boards.[/sarcasm]
