"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
Note to the Department of Homeland Security. These are not my words in case you are not familiar with them.
Why the County rules.
Because you made the mistake of getting them involved.
Do the survey, show the found corners as not accepted, set the corners the owners want the line to be and have them both sign the prepared survey. Then file it for record.
Why the County rules.
> Because you made the mistake of getting them involved.
>
> Do the survey, show the found corners as not accepted, set the corners the owners want the line to be and have them both sign the prepared survey. Then file it for record.
What you say Vern has a certain logic to it. However, do this here and it could result in big time problems with the licensing board.
Would you do enough research to know every party that might have any interest in the property? Plan to have the signatures notarized? If either property is encumbered by a deed of trust, you better get those parties involved.
There is the potential for a very tangled web here and unless you want to be certain you get everything properly addressed, your method of doing this just isn't sufficient.
I am all for keeping the county out of matters that are none of their business, but this way isn't the way.
Larry P
Why the County rules.
Agreed, substitute "all parties involved" for "both". Perhaps the county is involved in some instances but certainly not in most.
My experience working in both rural and very urban environments is that the problem is seldom regulation per se, rather regulation written and/or enforced by uneducated petty amateurs.
ANY planning agency rules - RANT
James, I think you hit that on the nose pretty well.
I've seen it happen where the "new" planning staff (likely not even from the area, sometimes even same state) have been "provided" an internal "process" (read check off list) that they have been told to follow by the agency "management" that can't keep good people in staff positions.
The result is often "employees" that are hamstringed themselves by a flawed process, by a "management team" developed after decades of the "peter principal" at work. This creates a "management" team that doesn't know enough to make a decision themselves. The result, usually is to just send it to court. Then of course change the "process" accordingly after the court case. I see it more and more all the time.
POOF! The "process" delineated by liability. Policy and Procedure adjusted accordingly (update check off list - - - check). Then, the liability of decision making, artfully avoided at the public's expense. Result, land use planning by attorneys.
The "management" dodges any liability for bad decisions this way. Promoting the "bible" of policy and procedure (check off list). Putting decisions in an endless "IF THEN" programing loop, and eliminating the liability of a decision being made by any "person" making a bad call, or having an opinion that may "damage" the agency.
See, this is what happens when you give a giant iced Mocha to a guy who doesn't drink coffee in the morning!! I have no idea how much caffeine I just ingested... o.O
Not to get off topic or anything.... 😉
Just my perspective and 2 cent's worth..... RANT off. :woot:
I had an issue some years ago that set my mind right when dealing with these regulators.
I was designing a subdivision and it abutted a former railroad bed that had been converted a bike trail. I called the regulatory folks at the County looking for layout plans (ha, like if!). I was finally connected with a your sounding guy. I was young then too, maybe 28. I explained what I was doing and what I was looking for and the first words out his mouth was, "You can't access the bike trail from the property." "What?" I said. then I just laughed at him and said, "Yeah right."
This bike trail is 22 miles long and there isn't a single point where access is regulated, no fences, nothing. I created an easement at the end of the cul-de-sac to access the bike trail and life has gone on for almost 30 years now.
Sometimes you just have to ignore people.
Really? How can the county override state code? 76-3-207 exempts the survey from review and allows for relocating common lines in a variety of situations.
Well that is in a different state, but there are similar situations here.
Each county is different, some are very friendly to development, others not..:-(
Did you add the note?
Parcel X contains insufficient area and/or frontage to comply with zoning and will be combined with an adjacent property for building purposes.
Did you add the note?
I didn't have to add it, it was already on the plan.
Sounds like the neighbors had a property line dispute and came to an agreement. Why not approach the court and tell them there is a dispute. Judges don't like property line disputes and I'm sure he would like to see and agreement. Maybe he would rule the property line is to be where the neighbors agreed. I think a court decision would over rule any planning commission.
> Sounds like the neighbors had a property line dispute and came to an agreement. Why not approach the court and tell them there is a dispute. Judges don't like property line disputes and I'm sure he would like to see and agreement. Maybe he would rule the property line is to be where the neighbors agreed. I think a court decision would over rule any planning commission.
You would certainly think that judges have the authority to do as they please. Any reasonable person thinks that is right. The thing you have to remember is that most planning people check their brains at the door. Our local idiots wanted to write an ordinance that said before any judge could rule on any case (even cases that had nothing to do with land use) that the planning board would first have to go through their normal process and approve.
That insanity got to the point where it was officially proposed. That is when all of the local attorneys stepped in and got things stopped. But if the board and staff had had their way, every citizen would have had to comply with their will in all cases.
Larry P
Actually, I would hesitate to call it a dispute, there is a fence and a deed line which don't match up and the fence wouldn't work along the deed line, anyway they wanted to adjust their line.
Seems really simple to me.
But not so much.:-@
In 2007 I lost $40,000 from a failed sale because the County wouldn't allow me to do a boundary line adjustment. There is hope but it takes time. I had a couple of big conversations with the county attorney. I started going to every planning commission meeting. There was a lot of conversations with other surveyors that were seeing the problem. It took years in Utah but the problem has basically been solved. In the end a dairy farmer that had been struck with some of this stuff and a long time state legislature got a bill passed that exempts boundary line adjustments/agreements from regulation by P&Z.
And what about P&Z in my county and attendance to all them meetings voicing my public opinion. I been on the planning commission going on three years now (if you are going to come to every meeting might as well part of it). This last year I been the chairman. Reason will prevail, it just takes time and effort. I've helped get a lot of things fixed and still got a list to work on.
Perhaps an easement with broad land-use privileges or a long-term ground lease would slide through. The authorities may have forgotten to create a regulation about such items. Of course your clients would have to determine if such a document would meet their needs.
Bad rules are written by those with something to gain
Search long enough and you will find that most really bad rules and policies were developed/backed by those who would gain directly from enforcement of those bad rules and policies.
