Rankin_File, post: 412984, member: 101 wrote: A 35' lot...... that's not living..... :worried:
Had a builder build this house a few years back. Two stories, 11' wide.
RADAR, post: 413136, member: 413 wrote: A swig is not a specific measurement. The term is sometimes confused with 'shot'. A shot is 1.5 fluid ounces, also called a jigger. Two jiggers (3 fluid ounces) make up a gil. The rum ration of the Royal Navy was a gil of rum per day. If a sailor saved up his rations and got drunk on them he was said to be 'stewed to the gils'.
There is no defined number of ounces in a swig. A swig is a little more than a sip, but a little less than a gulp!
Just FYI...
As measured in a 1 pint mason jar:
snort = 1 finger
swig = 2 fingers
pull = 3 fingers
back-chain, post: 413051, member: 7900 wrote: last swig = 98% backwash... so say the kids I grew up with. volume = not a consideration in light of stated understanding.
Going to get some new coffee now.
Wow! 1.5'???? If it's a tenth I may report it as on the line and attribute it to a rounding error or something, but 1.5 ft? There's nothing you can do for him there. Should have made the house smaller.
Who staked it out?
paden cash, post: 413046, member: 20 wrote: Sounds like the "stop by and flag up the corners thing" is going to take a little longer than estimated...
That's why I don't flag corners for anyone. I survey property.
Dan Patterson, post: 413214, member: 1179 wrote: Who staked it out?
I don't know. I have the name of the platting surveyor, of course. The plat was recorded in 2016.
Steve Gilbert, post: 413220, member: 111 wrote: That's why I don't flag corners for anyone.
I don't normally do this sort of thing either. This was a favor for a regular client who develops commercial property.
Mark Mayer I suppose a written report to your client was made. If not I think you should do that.
How about the Owner? Shouldn't the Owner also be put on notice?
Mark Mayer, post: 413222, member: 424 wrote: I don't normally do this sort of thing either. This was a favor for a regular client who develops commercial property.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Peter Ehlert, post: 413231, member: 60 wrote: Mark Mayer I suppose a written report to your client was made. If not I think you should do that.
That will happen. I have decided not to make a map. If I did she would think that a survey had been done. The platting surveyor will also be contacted.
Around here 1.5' of that house would be coming off!
Mark Mayer, post: 413234, member: 424 wrote: That will happen. I have decided not to make a map. If I did she would think that a survey had been done. The platting surveyor will also be contacted.
How can you As-Built a house and not be conducting a survey?
In my opinion you would owe the client a refund of money if you did not produce a map.
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 413242, member: 236 wrote: How can you As-Built a house and not be conducting a survey?
In my opinion you would owe the client a refund of money if you did not produce a map.
Paul in PA
the tea leaves of this thread suggest why no map has been produced.
i occasionally have a client who has, say, a tree on their property that is problematic for them for whatever reason. now, what goes on between that client and the city in regard to tree removal and the city tree ordinance is neither my business nor my responsibility. but, if i know there's a potential problem, and the very act of a producing a map will eliminate virtually every possible option, save one, for dealing with the problematic tree... i may advise the client of that scenario. and still charge for doing the field work. if and when the map is requested subsequent to whatever issue resolution is determined, it is charged for at that time.
Her in CT it would depend how long said house was in existence. If it has been standing more than three year CT Statute 8-13A may apply.
"Sec. 8-13a. Nonconforming buildings, structures and land uses. (a)(1) When a building or other structure is so situated on a lot that it violates a zoning regulation of a municipality that prescribes the location of such a building or structure in relation to the boundaries of the lot or when a building or structure is situated on a lot that violates a zoning regulation of a municipality that prescribes the minimum area of the lot, and when such building or structure has been so situated for three years without the institution of an action to enforce such regulation, such building or structure shall be deemed a nonconforming building or structure in relation to such boundaries or to the area of such lot, as the case may be. For purposes of this section, ÛÏstructureÛ has the same meaning as in the zoning regulations for the municipality in which the structure is located or, if undefined by such regulations, ÛÏstructureÛ means any combination of materials, other than a building, that is affixed to the land, including, without limitation, signs, fences, walls, pools, patios, tennis courts and decks.
IF not, then you probably won't get a C.O. I don';t see how ZBA would grant a variance, I don't see a legit hardship. Most time a lot line adjustment is required.
flyin solo, post: 413247, member: 8089 wrote: the tea leaves of this thread suggest why no map has been produced.
i occasionally have a client who has, say, a tree on their property that is problematic for them for whatever reason. now, what goes on between that client and the city in regard to tree removal and the city tree ordinance is neither my business nor my responsibility. but, if i know there's a potential problem, and the very act of a producing a map will eliminate virtually every possible option, save one, for dealing with the problematic tree... i may advise the client of that scenario. and still charge for doing the field work. if and when the map is requested subsequent to whatever issue resolution is determined, it is charged for at that time.
In the case of a house not meeting a setback, I think that, as a professional land surveyor, you had definitely notify them immediately; and probably in writing. I don't know that you have to notify anyone else or the regulating authority, but letting a problem slide that might cost your client a large some of money could have serious liability in the future.
Tom Adams, post: 413321, member: 7285 wrote: In the case of a house not meeting a setback, I think that, as a professional land surveyor, you had definitely notify them immediately; and probably in writing. I don't know that you have to notify anyone else or the regulating authority, but letting a problem slide that might cost your client a large some of money could have serious liability in the future.
of course on the notification. i'm not quite as sold on the "in writing" part, though. or, perhaps, the "in writing" part should be carefully considered. what i would hate to do is to produce a survey that then runs red flags up to everyone involved, at which point any number of interested entities maybe pulls the plug on a deal, when it may well be possible that a phone call to the platting surveyor or any other number of various solutions or (relatively) minor gymnastics may be available to parties involved to come to a resolution with less pain. if not, then kick out your map. the sequence of (recording) events can be absolutely crucial to how a problem is solved, or if it is solved at all. this is exactly the kind of situation where, afaic, due diligence would include considering... double clutching, for lack of a better term.
Way I see it you really don't have too many options but to document the conditions and encroachments as you found them. Typically these type of surveys are required by the lender to disclose exactly this kind of issue. It's a typical as-built conundrum. You reveal an issue that kills the sale and you become public enemy No.1. Don't reveal it and everyone involved can hang that albatross around your neck when and if it comes to light and causes someone damages. I'd document it exactly as I found it and move on.
'NEXT!'
flyin solo, post: 413326, member: 8089 wrote: of course on the notification. i'm not quite as sold on the "in writing" part, though. or, perhaps, the "in writing" part should be carefully considered. what i would hate to do is to produce a survey that then runs red flags up to everyone involved, at which point any number of interested entities maybe pulls the plug on a deal, when it may well be possible that a phone call to the platting surveyor or any other number of various solutions or (relatively) minor gymnastics may be available to parties involved to come to a resolution with less pain. if not, then kick out your map. the sequence of (recording) events can be absolutely crucial to how a problem is solved, or if it is solved at all. this is exactly the kind of situation where, afaic, due diligence would include considering... double clutching, for lack of a better term.
Well....all I was thinking about is if they decided to just finish their work and ignore the setback issue. That would be up to them, but if they later got caught they might claim that "you never told them". Having proof that you told them might be to your best interest one day. (but maybe I'm wrong).
Mark,
As a surveyor you have obligations to the adjoiners as well as your client. a house too close to a lot line, negatively affects the adjoining parcels. Since you say you could not find existing corners and have merely split the curb, I believe I is time for you o bite the bullet and prepare to do an actual surveyor, if for no other reason than to cover your butt in the future. That includes research and location of actual subdivision monuments.
I am well aware of professionals that have been paid more to not complete a project than they agreed to originally do the project for. It sounds like your client does not yet own the lot in question and failure to act now may raise your future liabilities.
Paul in PA
Tom Adams, post: 413334, member: 7285 wrote: Well....all I was thinking about is if they decided to just finish their work and ignore the setback issue. That would be up to them, but if they later got caught they might claim that "you never told them". Having proof that you told them might be to your best interest one day. (but maybe I'm wrong).
yeah, i can go with that. but i guess what i'm wondering is: why is mark being compelled into a pigeonholed (by some rationale in this thread) solution here- namely that he kick out a survey that is certainly going to get hackles raised?
for instance, why isn't it an option for him to call the platting surveyor, where maybe he finds out an amended plat or scrivener's affadavit is already in the works? or it's done and some scatterbrained, over caffeinated real estate agent didn't think it was all that important to file it right away? or take your pick of possibilities...
i wouldn't for a second advocate walking away from this issue- unless (and i swear a buddy dealt with this very thing) somebody involved tried to grease my palms. but it doesn't have to be a binary issue either- this "i'm a surveyor, i make surveys" mentality seems awfully myopic and, in fact, antithetical to our professional responsibilities.
