bridger48, post: 352894, member: 6251 wrote: Client has a Record of Survey conducted in 1996, bounding his land. Request is to post the boundary for fence construction. Field crew reports 2 of the 6 monument set in the 1996 Record of Survey are missing. Additional information assume the State is Oregon and corner recovery matches well with record Survey. The question is how to proceed?
My personal prospective is missing monuments within a Record of Survey and or a plat are only obliterated and the corner remains witnessed by the remaining monuments not withstanding original resolution issues. My surveyors should be able complete the posting without re-establishing permanent monuments and re-recording a survey has the singular differences of date and survey cap number.
California has the perfect solution to this situation. It is called a "Corner Record". If a monument or monuments were set during a final map (subdivision/parcel map) or record of survey (truly a record of survey because it is recorded in the county recorderÛªs office not filed in the surveyors office such as in Oregon) and no material discrepancies are found, then the surveyor can simply re-set the monuments and file a corner record for a nominal fee. The record consists of (1) 8-1/2 x 11 inch two sided form that can be filed with the county surveyors office. If a material discrepancy is found during the survey then a ÛÏrecord of surveyÛ is required, which can be expensive and time consuming in some counties from my understanding.
I think as a licensed surveyor we should want and advise clients that monuments are required along with the proper record filed. Right now only 2 monuments are missing but in a couple more years a couple more monuments will be missing. Then what? If we are not replacing them and perpetuating surveys and monuments we have nothing. I think the big problem is that we are not all on the same page when it comes to the advice we give our clients therefore making it a race to the bottom by providing the minimum service and cheap being the deciding factor especially during recessionary times that we have just came out of. Furthermore if we were acting uniformly professional as a profession we would not need state law to dictate what is needed during a survey. The laws come from non-professional behavior in many instances.
I do understand what you are saying about the way we are surveying now. A survey can be treated more like a land net system in which a point on the west side of a project can be set from a point on the east side of the project and most likely will fit just fine. With that being said why don't surveyors include "control points" on their surveys with coordinates or mathematical ties to the control points? I'm positive I could walk in their footsteps during a retracement if I had the control they used depicted on the map. For the most part we are no longer traversing through the corners or on a parallel offset as we did when I started in the 80's. My 2 cents, Jp
Interesting article from the board on page 3 of the Fall of 2015 of the Washington Board Journal, titled "Land Boundary Survey
Map Requirements". I gave that a read and have been thinking about it pretty consistently since then.
http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/engineerslandsurveyors/docs/engFall2015.pdf
bridger48, post: 353037, member: 6251 wrote:
(2) Surveys exempted by foregoing subsections of this section shall require filing of a record of corner information pursuant to RCW 58.09.040(2).
For our neighbors to the north and south it is the boundary resolution that triggers an ROS. if you replace missing monuments without finding material discrepancies then you can get away with filing a land corner record. in Oregon we do not have that option, you must file a ROS if you set a monument. in Oregon the ROS requirements are very specific and requires a review by the county surveyor. the cost is considerable. I would love to have the land corner record here.
For your original case I would review the narrative on the previous survey and determine if you agree with its resolution. If you do then give them an offset hub to the missing corner. No ROS needed.
Jp7191, post: 353048, member: 1617 wrote: California has the perfect solution to this situation. It is called a "Corner Record". If a monument or monuments were set during a final map (subdivision/parcel map) or record of survey (truly a record of survey because it is recorded in the county recorderÛªs office not filed in the surveyors office such as in Oregon) and no material discrepancies are found, then the surveyor can simply re-set the monuments and file a corner record for a nominal fee. The record consists of (1) 8-1/2 x 11 inch two sided form that can be filed with the county surveyors office. If a material discrepancy is found during the survey then a ÛÏrecord of surveyÛ is required, which can be expensive and time consuming in some counties from my understanding.
I think as a licensed surveyor we should want and advise clients that monuments are required along with the proper record filed. Right now only 2 monuments are missing but in a couple more years a couple more monuments will be missing. Then what? If we are not replacing them and perpetuating surveys and monuments we have nothing. I think the big problem is that we are not all on the same page when it comes to the advice we give our clients therefore making it a race to the bottom by providing the minimum service and cheap being the deciding factor especially during recessionary times that we have just came out of. Furthermore if we were acting uniformly professional as a profession we would not need state law to dictate what is needed during a survey. The laws come from non-professional behavior in many instances.
I do understand what you are saying about the way we are surveying now. A survey can be treated more like a land net system in which a point on the west side of a project can be set from a point on the east side of the project and most likely will fit just fine. With that being said why don't surveyors include "control points" on their surveys with coordinates or mathematical ties to the control points? I'm positive I could walk in their footsteps during a retracement if I had the control they used depicted on the map. For the most part we are no longer traversing through the corners or on a parallel offset as we did when I started in the 80's. My 2 cents, Jp
Surveys treated as a land net system only work for other surveyors.
That doesn't do much for the client, a piece of paper he can't relate to.
Every time he needs to find his corner he has to call a surveyor who will then show him what? Point to a spot on the ground and walk off?
Mr. Bridger,
I am now thoroughly confused. It appears that you like every post in this thread so far. That is hard to imagine.
Holy Cow, post: 353119, member: 50 wrote: Mr. Bridger,
I am now thoroughly confused. It appears that you like every post in this thread so far. That is hard to imagine.
He's hoping one of you wins Powerball and he wants his name fresh in your thoughts tonite when you say "Self, what are we gonna do with $1.5B?
Hope my measly $20 bucks will pay off better than the $30 total spent in recent weeks. Not into this type of gambling. Farming and operating a survey business is normally plenty of risk for me.
When they asked the farmer who had just won $5 million in the state lottery what he intended to do with the winnings he said he would keep farming until it was all gone.;-)
The 'likes' are a note of thanks for taking part in the discussion. As for the lottery tickets, purchased two. I may need to win twice.
As for the discussion, we got a bit off track as I proposed a fence construction problem where the outcome was the building of a fence between boundary angle points that had previously been monumented and recorded with a couple of corner missing. The question was what was necessary to proceed as the surveyor. In Oregon the statue is quite clear you need to replace and re-record, if the line is to be staked between missing corners. I do not like this requirement. One, my client wants a fence, not a boundary survey with monuments as he already has had a survey done. Two, I see this requirement suggesting that I would diminish my effort to correctly place the fence forsaking the risk to my license and livelihood, we can not be trusted. Three, the $1,400 extra cost to the client for a single re-set, presenting the approximate difference between just a staking and a record of survey in the area, recording is $400 of that. Four, I just do not like big brother government that much, I do like all my fellow surveyors although.
Thanks all for your thoughts and comments,
bridger
Holy Ripoff, Batman! $400 to record a plat! That's robbery!
BTW, I would still charge the first thousand whether or not a fence line was involved. The potential risk is basically the same either way.
Holy Cow, post: 353147, member: 50 wrote: $400 to record a plat! That's robbery!
Around here the word "plat" is reserved for subdivision maps. Maps that create new parcels. The recording fee for a "plat" will be more like $4000. Often more.
Now. that is flat out ridiculous.
When I tell my clients how much their expense for a real estate transaction to be completed in other places they usually think I am lying.
Showing them the facts allows them to understand they are actually getting treated very fair.
The attorneys and title companies around here are too cheap to record drawings of any survey or have it placed in the deed.
Mark Mayer, post: 353153, member: 424 wrote: Around here the word "plat" is reserved for subdivision maps. Maps that create new parcels. The recording fee for a "plat" will be more like $4000. Often more.
Some jurisdictions down here are backing off on the per-unit fees because they were making affordable housing impossible, like 100k per unit total (including all fees, not just map checking).
The fees (planning estimate letter), for a simple lot split in a metro city adjoining Portland OR
Pre-Application meeting: $1509
Tentative Plan : $7806
Final Plat : $1421
Addressing Fee : $83
TOTAL $10,819
After receiving the above, I suggested at the initial meeting, your city is clearly demonstrating a unfriendly developmental environment here. To my surprise the city attendees placed pencil to paper and asked, well what do think is wrong?