Whats the general consensus on putting building setbacks on a Record of Survey?
I don't like it because they change over time and can be misleading to future property owners. Would we have to amend our ROS 30 years down the road when the setbacks change?
I've never been asked to put them on a ROS and would probably try to avoid for the reasons you state. I've put them on ALTAs before but that's a different animal of course.
I wouldn't, but it would be easy to create a separate drawing, using the ROS as a base, that shows what the client wants to see.
Isn't all the information you put on a map subject to change? I don't know what it is about ROS that is different from what I call a map of the survey. I publish maps of my surveys all the time and never wondered if I would be responsible for anything that changes after the map is published. What am I missing?
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
I'll do it when a reviewer requests it, but I include a statement similar to, "The setbacks shown are in reference to Town of Annoyingreviewer's 2025 Unified Development Ordinances and were not reviewed by an attorney and therefore should not be relied upon in any way shape or form. Contact Town of Annoyingreviewers for an authoritative statement on applicable setbacks."
I'm not getting paid for the liability of stating what or where setbacks are (excepting new subdivisions) so I think it's fair to play the not-an-attorney card. In most jurisdictions, setbacks are fairly straightforward. However, when I have to get out a color wheel to discern fifty shades of yellow to get the correct zoning (light industrial quasi residential open space historic district ab75 zoning) my hackles go up.
Isn't all the information you put on a map subject to change?
Oregon Revised Statute 92.050(9) phrases it this way:
"No city or county shall require that a final subdivision, condominium or partition plat show graphically on the
final plat any information or requirement that is or may be subject to administrative change or variance by a city or
county."
Oregon Revised Statute 92.050(9) phrases it this way:
"No city or county shall require that a final subdivision, condominium or partition plat show graphically on the
final plat any information or requirement that is or may be subject to administrative change or variance by a city or
county."
Well, 1.) there's no mention of records of survey in what you quoted which is what the discussion was about. And 2.) I think not my real name was asking why you wouldn't include the information, not whether or not including the info was allowed.
While it is the law for plats only, it specifies the logic behind making it the common practice for Records of Survey. One could include setbacks on a Record of Survey, by law, but I do not think that it would be a good idea since those setbacks could be obsolete before the ink was dry. We are talking about permanent public records here. Nevertheless I would have no objection to adding those setbacks to a non-recorded version of the ROS, for the private use of my client.
Isn't all the information you put on a map subject to change?
Oregon Revised Statute 92.050(9) phrases it this way:
"No city or county shall require that a final subdivision, condominium or partition plat show graphically on the
final plat any information or requirement that is or may be subject to administrative change or variance by a city or
county."
The more complete quoting of Oregon Revised Statute 92.050(9) is:
"(9) A city or county may not require that a final subdivision, condominium or partition plat show graphically or by notation on the final plat any information or requirement that is or may be subject to administrative change or variance by a city or county or any other information unless authorized by the county surveyor. "
Thanks for the feedback. This is a requirement on a city application for a Lot Line adjustment. The ROS gets reviewed by the City Engineer. I'm going to request to remove the setback lines and see what happens.
The more complete quoting of Oregon Revised Statute 92.050(9) is:
It seems that the version of 92.050(9) that I quoted came from 2001. It was later amended in 2005 with the addition of the County Surveyor reference. The CSs in Oregon are endowed with a lot of power over what can and can't be shown on an ROS.
There are jurisdictions where ordinances require two seances and a hearing before the supreme court to figure out the requirements. Those get handled hourly in a variety of ways. I never use the phrase "I'm not an attorney". I may write an unflattering critique of the ordinance and note the building line as not plottable, but being an attorney (or not) is irrelevant. We routinely read and apply laws with understanding. That's our job. The practice of law is defined in statute the same as other professions. As far as I know reading comprehension isn't the sole domain of attorneys in any jurisdiction. Based on some of what I see it's probably quite the opposite.
I never use the phrase "I'm not an attorney". I may write an unflattering critique of the ordinance and note the building line as not plottable, but being an attorney (or not) is irrelevant.
There's a difference between stating that one is not an attorney and stating that an opinion has not included the oversight of an attorney. Too many folks assume every survey is an ALTA survey, and thus includes the oversight of a title attorney, for me to not take notice and include a courteous statement to the alternative. I don't view this or my statement regarding setbacks as absolving me of responsibility. It's more of an extreme form of pedantry, particularly in the context of other efforts made in anticipation of sophisticated or unsophisticated parties misinterpreting the information I provide. Likely a fool's errand, but maybe it has helped someone.
Thanks for the feedback. This is a requirement on a city application for a Lot Line adjustment. The ROS gets reviewed by the City Engineer. I'm going to request to remove the setback lines and see what happens.
There's also different documents for different purposes. It may be appropriate for application exhibits to have a bunch of junk that is not appropriate for a plat or survey headed to recording.
Showing the distance to structures from the boundary is an approach that let's the people reviewing the application determine and apply the setbacks (5, 10, whatever feet) and evaluate whether the dimensioned structures are in compliance. Reporting what is measured is well within our realm as surveyors and leaves determining what the appropriate setback is to other people (and provides them with the information they need). Maybe this structure has a conditional use permit as a church once a week in a something-zone and this means that instead of setback such and such it is such and such +1'. Let the reviewer figure that out (and provide the needed information to evaluate). Or if required to put it on, like someone else said, cite what it is, "Town code 1.234 requires 5' setback for zone R1," and leave it for them to accept, refute, revise, etc.
Whats the general consensus on putting building setbacks on a Record of Survey?
I don't like it because they change over time and can be misleading to future property owners. Would we have to amend our ROS 30 years down the road when the setbacks change?
I'm not fond of anybody regulating what I must or must not show on a retracement survey plat. Such a document is an affidavit. It conveys the actions of the surveyor, the evidence found, and the surveyor's opinion of boundary location. It is not binding on anyone, not even the one who commissioned the work. As an affidavit, I believe the surveyor is entitled to freedom of speech.
I've always viewed setback lines as being one of two types. Setbacks are often created by the development owners in the subdivision process. Landowners cannot create regulatory law, but they can create covenants between subdivided lots.
Setbacks can also be created by government entities as regulatory law.
A single track may be subject to both a covenant setback and also a regulatory setback. The setbacks can have different widths. Covenant setbacks are enforced by other lot owners or maybe a homeowners association with a civil action. Regulatory setbacks are dealt with as a violation of law.
A variance obtained for one type of setback does not negate the need to comply with the other type setback.
Since subdivision plats are an addendum to deeds, if covenant setbacks are shown, I think it's appropriate to show the setbacks on a retracement survey.
@murphy I curious as to the "not an attorney card" may be. What does an attorney have to do with zoning?
Chris, it's a recognition that the audience for any given plat is difficult to predict. I make my maps for sophisticated and unsophisticated parties alike. I follow up with clients, and a frequent comment is that many of the folks looking at plats think they are all ALTAs and include review by a tittle attorney. I find the cost of putting seventeen additional letters in the notes section to be minimal if there's even the slightest chance that it helps them understand what the plat does or does not represent. I don't use the, "Not an attorney," statement as an effort to minimize liability.
Mark,
For some perspective, the "any information or requirement that is or may be subject to administrative change or variance by a city or county or any other information unless authorized by the county surveyor" wording was put in after the lobbying of Chuck in Clackamas and I think Bob H. of Multnomah and maybe Jim E. of Washington. A lot of planning departments and other entities in Portland and environs who had their fingers in the platting pie, particularly Clean Water Services (which I'm not familiar with, they don't have them here in the east) were requiring all sorts of extraneous things to be on the plat. Like the species of plants to be planted in drainage swales. It was a great addition to the statutes from my experience. We'd hear from our customers (private surveyors) about off-beat plat requirements that, say, irrigation districts or city parks and rec departments were demanding and we'd be able to nip those in the bud by telling the perps that ORS doesn't allow them since they could be controlled and changed by code, contracts, agreements and other such not-plat mechanisms.
Mark,
For some perspective, the "any information or requirement that is or may be subject to administrative change or variance by a city or county or any other information unless authorized by the county surveyor" wording was put in after the lobbying of Chuck in Clackamas and I think Bob H. of Multnomah and maybe Jim E. of Washington. A lot of planning departments and other entities in Portland and environs who had their fingers in the platting pie, particularly Clean Water Services (which I'm not familiar with, they don't have them here in the east) were requiring all sorts of extraneous things to be on the plat. Like the species of plants to be planted in drainage swales. It was a great addition to the statutes from my experience. We'd hear from our customers (private surveyors) about off-beat plat requirements that, say, irrigation districts or city parks and rec departments were demanding and we'd be able to nip those in the bud by telling the perps that ORS doesn't allow them since they could be controlled and changed by code, contracts, agreements and other such not-plat mechanisms.
I'm seeing a similar trend in this part of Idaho. It feels like the City's are tending towards using Plat notes for code enforcement......
.... Chuck in Clackamas and I think Bob H. of Multnomah and maybe Jim E. of Washington ...
Chuck Pearson was never shy about accumulating and using what ever power he could get. Bob Hovden seemed to be in perpetual pursuit of, while never quite achieving, the perfect Record of Survey. He made my life miserable, while certain survey mills were allowed to record crap daily. Jim Elam spent much of his career under Chuck and mostly followed his lead, but I still think that there was a huge reduction of stress at WACO when Chuck moved over to Clackamas. I must say that Chuck cleaned up the multi generational cluster F___ that had been Clackamas remarkably quickly. He was the right a__hole for that job.