Got a client email; he had received an email from his PUD that said he still owned 5 lots in the area where I had finished doing a replat taking 7 lots and making them 2.?ÿ
That was approved in February.?ÿ
4 months or so ago. All signed by the county, recorded and two quit claim deeds filed to split the replat into the correct ownership.
He is trying to reduce his lot payment from 5 to 1 and the PUD said they reviewed his application and he still owns 5 lots because the county GIS shows it that way.?ÿ
Soooooo,,,,,,,I sent the scanned plat, the file on I-doc showing the recording, the two deeds.?ÿ
Lucky for me I hadn't removed and folder I keep on my desktop to send emails from as ongoing jobs are completed. Made it real simple.?ÿ
Come on now 4 months?
And really they are using the GIS for their review?
It's a wonder they can bill the correct lot owners.?ÿ
Come on now 4 months?
Yup. ?ÿ4 ?ÿmonths for me to consider starting your survey at this moment in human history. ?ÿ( side note , boy my Iphone does not like beer leg dot come lately??.)
Very few public employees that I come across are quick to do anything but it made me laugh to hear that it had to be 5 lots because the County GIS said so!!
?ÿI love your posts! You have more bizarre episodes in chaos in two months than most of us have in twenty years. What happens next? ?????ÿ
...because the County GIS said so!!
Unfortunately, that is fairly common. We recently had a two-lot binding site plan (similar to a plat) where?ÿ everything got approved, they moved forward with constructing a storage facility on one lot, and right as they finished up and went for their occupancy certificate, the city refused.
Why? Because we were supposedly showing the other undeveloped lot (fronting on a semi-major state highway) incorrectly.
The GIS team insisted that there was a 10-foot ROW taking that we were not showing, and that it threw the whole project into question. (The other lot's preliminary design was out the window if this was true.) We had done the civil design, as well as the construction staking, and not once before had this come up.
So I spent a couple hours looking into things, only to find that someone in the GIS department had double-dipped on the ROW take (which we had already researched and depicted), which is why our lines weren't matching. But for about two days, the whole damned project was thrown into question because the magic lines on the interwebs didn't match our survey.
?ÿ
@rover83?ÿ
After starting in geophysical Surveying, migrating to land surveying, then into GIS, and back to land surveying, I deeply believe that anyone working at the assessor's office with GIS absolutely needs formal training in some type or fashion.
The yeahoos that create these time wasting kerfuffles are just a?ÿ dispositive to the whole process that have slowly evolved into what we have due to severe lack of caring or understanding what's really going on.
?ÿ
@flga-2-2?ÿ
The thing that struck me about this one is that how in the world are they (the PUD group) maintaining their systems by using the GIS as the authority.?ÿ
This is a really large PUD, I was recently told there were 48 houses under construction in June. That is just a small fraction of the total. Lots, Houses, Townhomes, Condo's in the PUD are being sold and buildings are going up so there is a constant turnover. The PUD has it's own irrigation water system, it's own sewer system, roads, resturants, clubs; a typical large development that assesses fees and deals with venders and regulators.
4 months billing the wrong owner must have come up over and over if this is the standard.
You'd think.......they just might consider a change.?ÿ
@mightymoe good point.
Hell, at least you didn??t get stuck with this thing in your county government???? ?????ÿ
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/11/us/politics/joel-greenberg-matt-gaetz.html
@rover83 I find myself in a similar but different situation right now.?ÿ I surveyed a lot in a subdivision that was approved and filed roughly 15 years ago.?ÿ The subdivision encompasses an entire block and consists of approximately 30 1/4 acre lots.?ÿ The subdivision approval required the developer who owned the subdivision to post a bond to assure the subdivision monuments were set.?ÿ The bond was posted but the monuments were never set and the Township Engineer/Surveyor never had the bond called in to set the monuments.
After 15 years, various surveyors have done work to improve most of the lots in the block.?ÿ We surveyed our PIQ and no subdivision monuments were in place.?ÿ We recovered multiple corner markers throughout the block that are in reasonable harmony.?ÿ Our Engineering staff generates a grading plan, and plot plan based on my survey and the Township approves it.?ÿ We stake the house, the foundation is located, and the Township approves the foundation location plan.?ÿ The house is built, the lot graded, both in full compliance with the plans the Township approved. Here's the kicker, the Township is now refusing to issue a certificate of occupancy.
It seems the adjoining land owner is the son of the builder who filed the subdivision and is claiming that the home built on my PIQ is 2' too close to his and is persistently chirping.?ÿ He provides an unsealed copy of his 15 year old survey to the town that shows no corners set or found to support his argument.?ÿ The Township Engineer emails me and tells me that I need to contact the firm that did the subdivision and I do. It turns out that they never set the control monuments (approximately 20 of them) because the builder didn't want to pay to have them set so the firm does not want to get involved at this point because they won't be paid and won't share their original survey information because they were never paid in full.?ÿ The Township's Surveyor chimes in with "the survey that shows corners recovered holds more water than the other" (mine shows found corners).?ÿ And we are still in a catch 22.?ÿ
The catch 22 situation has yet to be resolved.?ÿ The Engineers are looking at my survey and questioning it (which is illegal), their Surveyor won't commit, the Surveyor who did the subdivision work has washed his hands of it and I have made it clear to the Township Engineer that they are on the hook for the entire situation whether there is a 2' bust in the subdivision or not.?ÿ Suddenly things went silent when I pointed out the issues that were caused because they didn't do and enforce what is required legally long before things got to the point of a single chirping resident.
@flga-2-2?ÿ
Hiding behind a pay wall. What's that thing on his face,,,,,,,,,,,,,,haven't seen one of those since I flew in January.?ÿ