states "... if those requirements do not require an interpretation by the surveyor, graphically depict the building setback requirements." We have spent some time debating and attempting to interpret the 140-page zoning report provided by the client. Does this qualify as "interpretation"? And therefor remove the requirement to depict the setback lines?
Next issue: We think that the high-powered, expensive international zoning report company has misinterpreted the City zoning ordinance (which is too complicated to comprehend). Do we just report what their report says, or are we obligated to notify someone of our concerns? Doesn't this mean that we are involved in interpretation? Which the standards say we are not to do? Do we notify just the zoning report company? The client? The lender who paid for it (in this case)? Both? All 9 parties in the email chains?
All thoughts welcome...
I figure if you see something amiss you should promptly inform your client. So if you are calling out someone for their work include them.
I'm working on one now that reads setbacks are an additional 10' for every floor of difference between buildings on the subject property and buildings on adjoining properties and they want it graphically depicted. A note would be so much better. I have no idea how many story building they are planning. Oh yeah, would that be interpretation?
Jim in AZ, post: 438957, member: 249 wrote: We think that the high-powered, expensive international zoning report company has misinterpreted the City zoning ordinance (which is too complicated to comprehend). Do we just report what their report says, or are we obligated to notify someone of our concerns? Doesn't this mean that we are involved in interpretation? Which the standards say we are not to do?
So the ordinance is too complicated to comprehend, but you definitely disagree with the zoning reporter's interpretation. Huh. Instead of challenging the zoning report's interpretation ask, instead, for an explanation of what it says. That should cause the reporter to review what they have written.
I have heard a Portland City Commissioner state that having the ordinances so complicated that no one could follow them was a good thing because it gave city staff the power to make arbitrary judgements.
Jim in AZ, post: 438957, member: 249 wrote: states "... if those requirements do not require an interpretation by the surveyor, graphically depict the building setback requirements." We have spent some time debating and attempting to interpret the 140-page zoning report provided by the client. Does this qualify as "interpretation"? And therefor remove the requirement to depict the setback lines?
Next issue: We think that the high-powered, expensive international zoning report company has misinterpreted the City zoning ordinance (which is too complicated to comprehend). Do we just report what their report says, or are we obligated to notify someone of our concerns? Doesn't this mean that we are involved in interpretation? Which the standards say we are not to do? Do we notify just the zoning report company? The client? The lender who paid for it (in this case)? Both? All 9 parties in the email chains?
All thoughts welcome...
Gee, sounds like a project I did recently right here in Tucson, where the high-powered zoning report was indeed 140 pages and the City zoning ordinances are written so mere mortals cannot decipher them (and I've always said that was so the City can interpret the ordinance any way they want). I told the attorneys to have the zoning report people boil down the report to one paragraph which I would cut and paste into my notes. I didn't agree with their interpretation but my conscience was clear.
(To respond to your question, we are mere surveyors and not qualified to interpret those ordinances. That is the position taken by the ALTA and that is just fine with me.)
Bruce Small, post: 438992, member: 1201 wrote: Gee, sounds like a project I did recently right here in Tucson, where the high-powered zoning report was indeed 140 pages and the City zoning ordinances are written so mere mortals cannot decipher them (and I've always said that was so the City can interpret the ordinance any way they want). I told the attorneys to have the zoning report people boil down the report to one paragraph which I would cut and paste into my notes. I didn't agree with their interpretation but my conscience was clear.
(To respond to your question, we are mere surveyors and not qualified to interpret those ordinances. That is the position taken by the ALTA and that is just fine with me.)
We just had a court case here (local residents v. developer) in which the judge ruled that the City Zoning ordinance was too ambiguous to interpret. I too believe that we are barred from interpreting the ALTA Standards - thank you Gary Kent.