For those performing subdivision development work - do any agencies/jurisdictions you work for require that the surveyor map and certify the locations and elevations of the completed works?
Or do you make a practice of it, even if it isn't a stated requirement?
With subdivisions, there are as-built surveys required at different stages for different reasons.
If the jurisdiction doesn't require it, is the client willing to pay for it?
In my experience, not very often, so why would I do all that work for free?
For those performing subdivision development work - do any agencies/jurisdictions you work for require that the surveyor map and certify the locations and elevations of the completed works?
Yes, they require it, and to a ludicrous degree. I think the different departments have a contest on who can add the most outlandish and difficult tasks.
Is it dependent on location such as state or county? I always thought it was up to the client or contractor to let me know if they want or need an as-built.
Ol' Knud Hermanson would include examples of surveys that he considered standard that included everything, including the precise location of the mailbox on the other side of the street if it was for the premises being surveyed.
In my experience, not very often, so why would I do all that work for free?
I always thought it was up to the client or contractor to let me know if they want or need an as-built.
The circumstance here is that I work for a city. The suggestion has been made that we require a certified as-built mapping of the works before giving a final approval. I'm trying to find out if this is commonly done in other jurisdictions around the country.
An outfit I once worked for does as-builts of this type as a matter of course. They get paid for it, I assure you. And they do a lot of work around here. The cost is trivial compared to the construction budget. The results of these as-builts routinely showed that the final elevations of the constructed works varied from the design elevations by a few tenths.
I would not expect a surveyor do do such things merely out of the goodness of his or her heart.
Typically the engineers must certify that things were built to plan and note the differences. Sometimes it is the contractors' responsibility to submit such documents. Never is a surveyor required to certify the asbuilt condition but almost always a surveyor is asked to submit the asbuilt data to the contracor or the engineer.
The circumstance here is that I work for a city. The suggestion has been made that we require a certified as-built mapping of the works before giving a final approval. I'm trying to find out if this is commonly done in other jurisdictions around the country.
That is certainly a requirement here (Christchurch, New Zealand)
We require certification and mapping on roading, civil, water & drainage works etc for subdivision.
And again for new housing, buildings or any construction on or near boundaries
The circumstance here is that I work for a city. The suggestion has been made that we require a certified as-built mapping of the works before giving a final approval. I'm trying to find out if this is commonly done in other jurisdictions around the country.
Since you are asking for this reason, I will give you some thoughts:
When I started, this occurred with sanitary sewer. The contractor was required to maintain a redline set for things like water and storm and sewer and whatever else, and the inspectors signed off on bury depth for water, etc.
The "Record Drawings" were literally redlines of the original plans. They showed "significant" changes from the design, and were signed by the survey (with a cert that said how they obtained the info, sources of info, and to what extent they were certifying the drawing. The engineer was signing off on the installed system(s) as being adequate.
That all makes sense for sanitary sewer. Now we essentially draft a whole new set of plans based on our survey.
Water is a bit different due to the nature of either working or not, and that the bury depth is typically signed off by the inspector, not by survey of the actual pipe.
Storm is also different, IMHO. It flows or it doesn't, and a visit by an engineer during a rain would tell you all you need to know.
Enter GIS...all the "as-builts" I do that are nitpicky and useless are driven by filling in boxes in a GIS. I know this for a fact.
BUT, that all that GIS info is typically silo'ed into whatever agency it is given to, so there is zero benefit outside of that specific department. And, I am not sure what benefit that department gets from knowing the NAVD88 height of the top of the meter inside the box. The water departments think that if I had access to their info, it would result in a terrorist attack. I don't know what super expensive consultant gets paid to tell them such lies, but it must be good work, if you can get it.
In the end the question is, "Why???" If there are actual issues (and not one time events), then have the engineer certify that the system is as designed (meaning within expectations and design/construction parameters) (meaning no map), or they have to submit revised drawings (record or asbuilt, or whatever you call them) and certify that the facilities are adequate for the task.
In practice, what was previously covered by a set of well worn plans, redlined and maintained by the constructor and regularly checked by the inspector, now takes a process of many additional months, and tens of thousands of dollars to negotiate. It also gives a whole new class of people "go/no-go" authority...and power corrupts. AND I guarantee you the quality of the product is not better than it was 20 years ago, and a measurable amount of the cost of a home is eaten up in the process.
Talk to an honest and trusted contractor/developer. Talk to a trusted civil engineer. Talk to a savvy surveyor. Make them people in your area. Point to the actual issues you want addressed and that are coming up. Implement the MINIMUM needed to address those issues. Some of those items might be internal to the municipality, and shouldn't be put on the developer.
Since you are asking for this reason, I will give you some thoughts:
It sounds like your city has gone a little nuts. Wait - we are talking about Seattle, so I repeat myself. What we are thinking of is getting assurances that the as-builts that are delivered are based on actual as-constructed measurements, and not just a re-labelling of the construction plans. Would you object to the idea if the detail demanded was more reasonable?
It's been 30 years since I did any serious construction staking, but in the 15 or so years prior to that -- through a bunch of large projects, both residential and commercial -- I can't think of a single instance in which we as-built all (or even a significant subset) of the improvements. It must be a regional thing.
For residential subdivisions (picking the most regulatory restrictive local municipality):
- As-built water/ sewer for the water authority
- As-built public storm drain/stormwater management for DPW (if not totally per plan, add a certification by an engineer that it still meets the design performance). Also, all the geotechnical inspections, materials notes, planting certifications for bioretention areas
- Letter from surveyor certifying corners have set required for use & occupancy permit.
- Certification from surveyor during construction that the house first-floor elevation is per approved plan or that it is within acceptable tolerances so that the site can still be graded per plan.
For commercial development add an entire site grading as-built and a certification that it site is graded and landscaped per plan.
Ol' Knud Hermanson would include examples of surveys that he considered standard that included everything, including the precise location of the mailbox on the other side of the street if it was for the premises being surveyed.
That might be so, but Knud also provided examples of where he was a lawyer more than a surveyor, and advocated leaving certain features off of the survey, for a particular reason. He also would include some necessary information in his Surveyor's Report that he left off of the recorded survey plan - with a note on the plan that it was not to be used without the accompanying report, which isn't recorded.
Around here (Metrowest - between Boston and Worcester, MA) most towns will require an as-built survey prior to final acceptance of a subdivision road as a public way. They will also require a recordable boundary survey plan of the road layout with monuments set. Since this area is so peppered with wetlands, we often have to do as-built surveys to close out the wetlands permits for the individual lots, and sometimes for the subdivision road. I have a high-density subdivision project going where they also want as-builts with final grading of the individual lots, with emphasis on the plans for utility services, including tie distances to water gates, sewer manholes, etc.
More Regulation > More Billable Time > Mo Money
More Regulation > More Billable Time > Mo Money
Which puts a damper on the whole process, and robs property owners of bona fide rights (makes their property less valuable or more difficult to use). In the end reducing profitability hurts everyone involved in the process.
That thinking was exactly what the inspector said to me (waving generally in the direction of the houses) as I needlessly measured the elevation on the top of the water meter inside the box...as if there is an unlimited amount of money in the profit of a house.
Which puts a damper on the whole process
To be fair, I'm sitting in an office where my crews can easily reach 10 of the 25 wealthiest counties (2020 census median household income) in the country. So, my market is unique. But it's also a highly regulated area for development and the only thing slowing it down is lack of qualified professionals to do the work. If you gave me six crews, three solid techs, and two licensed surveyors today I could build enough business to have them fully utilized in 90 days.
I had a meeting last week with the Mid-Atlantic VP of a production homebuilder who moved into this area three years ago (they're in half a dozen eastern states). They are looking at 100 settlements this year and 400-500 in 2024.
Most municipalities require us to perform as-builts of water, sewer and storm systems and they must be on 83/88 datum. We get paid for the work but what is really going on is that they are forcing the developers to build their GIS for them.
what is really going on is that they are forcing the developers to build their GIS for them
The alternative is for the city to hire a lot of survey staff to go around and populate their GIS. Do you think that would be cheaper?
