People have a right to convey from tree to rock to fence post if that's what they want to do. I don't think a regulatory body has any right to deny them the services of a professional to help them describe what they've done based on the fact it's undesirable practice. But then, I don't have any problem with doctors helping terminally ill patients to die either. So I'm probably wrong again.
The reality, though, is that there is an opposing tension between demands of the marketplace for cheaper and faster (the main drivers of fenceline surveying, for example) and the longer-term needs of the landownership system that extend beyond some single land transaction. Poorly defined boundaries come at a cost that is usually displaced onto unsuspecting parties other than those who originally contracted for it.
When you consider that competent practice of surveying is not a permanent condition, the establishment of minimum standards makes perfect sense as an objective basis for holding back the corrupting influence of the commerical/contractual aspect of professional practice.
Many jurisdictions have minimum monumentation and tagging requirements... California simply says "durable" (tagged with registration number of course), and that actually works very well. Some local agencies like to further define, sometimes unreasonably, but they only have that authority for subdivisions and not Record of Surveys.
All that aside, the the Surveyor should be permitted to use his or her professional judgment. If they Fail, that is another matter and should be referred to their enforcement agencies, if any.
Bottom line, like Duane just said, we work for the land owners and we are entrusted to comply with their wishes as best we can.
BTW: I also feel we should be able to choose our own end days.
Kent McMillan, post: 365945, member: 3 wrote: The reality, though, is that there is an opposing tension between demands of the marketplace for cheaper and faster (the main drivers of fenceline surveying, for example) and the longer-term needs of the landownership system that extend beyond some single land transaction. Poorly defined boundaries come at a cost that is usually displaced onto unsuspecting parties other than those who originally contracted for it.
When you consider that competent practice of surveying is not a permanent condition, the establishment of minimum standards makes perfect sense as an objective basis for holding back the corrupting influence of the commerical/contractual aspect of professional practice.
Well stated. Many jurisdictions have minimum standards for the monumentation and survey of newly created boundaries for these exact reasons. These regulations were created because it was recognized that substandard boundary establishment creates a substantial drain on the economy. Surveys are expensive (when done right) and legal battles are more expensive. Once a boundary is created it has the potential to cause issues for hundreds of years for the whole neighborhood. The point of view that the land owners should be able to do whatever they want is similar to a land owner claiming the right to dump as much ant-freeze and raw sewage on their land as they like, because "its their land."
I think its quite a stretch to claim the constitution protects land owners rights to subdivide their land with rotten fence posts, although I would be happy to consider evidence to the contrary.
Kent McMillan, post: 365945, member: 3 wrote: The reality, though, is that there is an opposing tension between demands of the marketplace for cheaper and faster (the main drivers of fenceline surveying, for example) and the longer-term needs of the landownership system that extend beyond some single land transaction. Poorly defined boundaries come at a cost that is usually displaced onto unsuspecting parties other than those who originally contracted for it.
When you consider that competent practice of surveying is not a permanent condition, the establishment of minimum standards makes perfect sense as an objective basis for holding back the corrupting influence of the commerical/contractual aspect of professional practice.
Sounds good in theory. Unfortunately, in many jurisdictions it is commercial interests greater than surveyors or their associations that get to write (or influence the writing of) the regulations, and they are not always in the best interests of the public or surveyors.
aliquot, post: 365959, member: 2486 wrote: Well stated. Many jurisdictions have minimum standards for the monumentation and survey of newly created boundaries for these exact reasons. These regulations were created because it was recognized that substandard boundary establishment creates a substantial drain on the economy. Surveys are expensive (when done right) and legal battles are more expensive. Once a boundary is created it has the potential to cause issues for hundreds of years for the whole neighborhood. The point of view that the land owners should be able to do whatever they want is similar to a land owner claiming the right to dump as much ant-freeze and raw sewage on their land as they like, because "its their land."
I think its quite a stretch to claim the constitution protects land owners rights to subdivide their land with rotten fence posts, although I would be happy to consider evidence to the contrary.
I think telling them they can't put the boundary on or along an existing fence, even though it complies with all subdivision regulations, might be an infringement on the ability to legally contract. But a regulation that requires a certain type of monument grade fence post to replace the existing one would probably be okay.
The contract clause of the constitution does have some history in land boundary/title matters that may be of interest:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/72/obligation-of-contract
Duane Frymire, post: 366009, member: 110 wrote: Sounds good in theory. Unfortunately, in many jurisdictions it is commercial interests greater than surveyors or their associations that get to write (or influence the writing of) the regulations, and they are not always in the best interests of the public or surveyors.
So, the solution is to just let the clients dictate standards and have the licensees either decline to do the work or carry out the client's wishes? That sounds like a recipe for mayhem of the fast-acting variety.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 365817, member: 291 wrote: It is found. For the sake of this discussion.
And, it is established by the actions of the surveyor, through his crew, as a property corner.
That is, we have a pre-existing, farmer set, artificial boundary of the yard.
It has now, (by the act of the surveyor) been re-purposed, or recycled into a function, that it was not designed for.
Is it adequate? Depends. Is it good practice? Depends.
Is it how I do it? Not usually.
The few times I have done this, I visualize the post rotting, or suddenly vanishing, and use BDC. Same for witness trees. I try to imagine it rotting, and gone, and some lost and forlorn surveyors helper, finding one vague stumphole, that fits the rest of things.
If I use the "wire intersection" as the corner, (not BDC) then I set something. "Set 1/2" rebar, at fence corner, north 0.4' and east 0.6' to BDC of treated pine fence corner post, fence runs south and east."
Why has this discussion accrued this much attention?
Because we all have messed about for hours, trying to find the remains of such things. Or, at least, we have, or are thinking about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nate, It was established as a property by the owner, the surveyor memorialized it.
Foggy, I like your way of thinking.
N
I saw some good remarks. I agree that if the grantor wants the fence posts to be the boundary he has a right to have his intent done. I would recommend that the surveyor "set" some even-distance witness corners that are marked as "Witness Corner" and a distance to the fence post. You call out "set" (not found) to the witness monuments. They are the monuments you use to memorialize the location of the corner after the "temporary" (if it is not durable anyway) fence corner falls over. The fence post is, indeed, the corner location (per intent), but the retracing surveyor can use the witness monuments to discover where the true original location once was.
If you are arguing about "the fact is that the surveyor didn't set anything and is accepting/using an existing fence corner" I guess you can indeed say it was found, since that is the case. However, You should tag or mark it or describe it well enough such that another surveyor can be certain that they found the same fence post. (of course the pob and bearings and distances might confirm that).
We just drive 1/2" steel rods with caps at the major inflection points and at the fence corners (outside the fence). However, in the context of the question, I would write "THENCE North 89å¡56'24" East, and intermittently along an existing fence, 203.45 feet to the center of an 8" round fence corner found for the Southeast corner of this tract;"
Kris Morgan, post: 366086, member: 29 wrote: I would write "THENCE North 89å¡56'24" East, and intermittently along an existing fence, 203.45 feet to the center of an 8" round fence corner found for the Southeast corner of this tract;"
That implies that the fence post is a marker of record dignity, though. If it wasn't ever previously described as a boundary corner, there is no existing monument to find.
As to describing what I assume was an 8-inch treated pine pole fence post at the corner of a [specific type] wire fence as an "8-inch round fence corner", best practice requires a bit more detail. For example, ten years from now the next surveyor might be interested to know that the post you used was "old" or "apparently recently set" to use in estimating the age. Likewise, the fact that it is a specific type of wood gives another clue as to identity. Naturally, even better practice would be to add an identifying tag to the existing post, but failing that giving a sufficient description becomes more important.
Duane Frymire, post: 366010, member: 110 wrote: I think telling them they can't put the boundary on or along an existing fence, even though it complies with all subdivision regulations, might be an infringement on the ability to legally contract. But a regulation that requires a certain type of monument grade fence post to replace the existing one would probably be okay.
The contract clause of the constitution does have some history in land boundary/title matters that may be of interest:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/72/obligation-of-contract
I assume that most subdivision regulations have provisions for corners that are impossible to monument (witness corners or reference monuments) that would allow you to honor your clients wishes.
If a regulation does not allow a boundary to be placed along an existing fence line that meets all other subdivision requirements, its a bad regulation, but it still can not be avoided by claiming immunity through a contract. You may have a right to enter into a contract, but that right does not nullify any regulation.
Kent McMillan, post: 366036, member: 3 wrote: So, the solution is to just let the clients dictate standards and have the licensees either decline to do the work or carry out the client's wishes? That sounds like a recipe for mayhem of the fast-acting variety.
No, the object is to show the clients the best way to carry out their intentions. There are good things about MTS but they can also limit the ability of a professional to provide the best solution for a client in any given scenario. Don't get me wrong, I know exactly where you're coming from. But I still hold out hope for individual excellence. In policy I'm a dreamer, in practice I'm practical.
aliquot, post: 366104, member: 2486 wrote: I assume that most subdivision regulations have provisions for corners that are impossible to monument (witness corners or reference monuments) that would allow you to honor your clients wishes.
If a regulation does not allow a boundary to be placed along an existing fence line that meets all other subdivision requirements, its a bad regulation, but it still can not be avoided by claiming immunity through a contract. You may have a right to enter into a contract, but that right does not nullify any regulation.
Well, the courts are on your side pretty much. The question is always how far will/can it go. If I have no constitutional rights that can nullify commercial interests regulations, then I really have no rights at all. The real question is; when does the right of contract cease to exist in light of regulations that would prohibit you from contracting? Always a balancing act.
I have run into situations that said "thence S 01*34'15" E AND WITH A FENCE 635.15'.... And found the fence to meander by up to 15 feet.
I walked the fence. I set a rebar, anywhere I found a link, by more than 1/2 a foot. I could not set all of them. Some link points were trees. I documented what I did.
I showed rebar, trees, a post, and stated my method.
The landowners liked it. Several later surveyors used it. It became settled.
It was good. I stated that I tried to average the fence. But that only held to points of kink, more than a 1/2 foot.
Kent McMillan, post: 366103, member: 3 wrote: That implies that the fence post is a marker of record dignity, though. If it wasn't ever previously described as a boundary corner, there is no existing monument to find.
As to describing what I assume was an 8-inch treated pine pole fence post at the corner of a [specific type] wire fence as an "8-inch round fence corner", best practice requires a bit more detail. For example, ten years from now the next surveyor might be interested to know that the post you used was "old" or "apparently recently set" to use in estimating the age. Likewise, the fact that it is a specific type of wood gives another clue as to identity. Naturally, even better practice would be to add an identifying tag to the existing post, but failing that giving a sufficient description becomes more important.
I don't really care what you think. I answered the question posed by the OP. Whether or not you or I agree with using fence posts is irrelevant and counter to the subject matter of the thread. Also, if you don't set it, you found it. Just because a corner is not of record dignity, doesn't mean it cannot be used. Surely you've used an iron stake that wasn't of record dignity before. Did you call it found? Don't believe me, call and get a board ruling, or better yet, send in a plat that doesn't say found or set and see what happens. Hell, why waste the time on the phone, you're a few miles away. Just drive over there and see what they think.
Kris Morgan, post: 366193, member: 29 wrote: Whether or not you or I agree with using fence posts is irrelevant and counter to the subject matter of the thread. Also, if you don't set it, you found it. Just because a corner is not of record dignity, doesn't mean it cannot be used.
If you consider the purpose of the rule in the first place, though, you should see that the main purposes of having land surveyors report whether a monument was found or set was as a means of documenting the trail of evidence. That is, if a Texas registrant recovers a boundary monument that is used in determining the boundary of a tract, he or she mentions the fact that it was a monument found as opposed to a corner conjured from thin air.
In the case of a fence post that is not mentioned in any conveyance in the chain of title to the subject tract or an adjoining tract, i.e. is not "of record dignity", a registrant who reports that he or she "found" a fence post marking a corner or angle point has the burden of explanation:
663.16(C) "All boundaries shall be connected to identifiable physical monuments related to corners of record dignity. In the absence of such monumentation the land surveyor's opinion of the boundary location shall be supported by other appropriate physical evidence, which shall be explained in a land surveyor's sketch or written report."
The misuse of the word "found" really mainly serves to confuse the issue when before the surveyor arrived it was merely an existing fence post.
If you have an exception to the rule as to whether you can call it 'found' or 'set', I would hope could be handled by a simple explanation. I would report whatever I "set" to perpetuate the location of the post. I know some plat-checkers might have a hissy-fit if you don't write one of the two words by the actual fence post, but I would hope more practical minds would prevail.
Tom Adams, post: 366281, member: 7285 wrote: If you have an exception to the rule as to whether you can call it 'found' or 'set', I would hope could be handled by a simple explanation. I would report whatever I "set" to perpetuate the location of the post. I know some plat-checkers might have a hissy-fit if you don't write one of the two words by the actual fence post, but I would hope more practical minds would prevail.
In the case of some categories of monuments, it makes no sense to explain that it wasn't set by the surveyor. Waterways and trees are obvious examples of where it is understood from the context that the surveyor did not create the waterway or transplant a 24-inch Live Oak with the scar of an old mark "X" on its bark.
The more important thing is WHY good practice is for a surveyor to mention whether some object marking a boundary is something that was found in place or that was newly set (or even set in previous work by oneself).
Kent McMillan, post: 366304, member: 3 wrote: The more important thing is WHY good practice is for a surveyor to mention whether some object marking a boundary is something that was found in place or that was newly set (or even set in previous work by oneself).
I agree 100%. I am guessing that the "law" being cited is for a retracement survey in relation to artificial monuments which is (I am also guessing) what 90% of the modern surveyor does. But I am also showing some of the possible absurdity of always having to make the statement either that something was 'found' or something was 'set' in my comment above. If I go to the thread of a stream and thence follow that stream, I don't necessarily care whether I say the word "found". As you point out, I will simply describe the stream well enough by measurement, or other means, so that another surveyor (or land owner) can feel confident that they are using the same stream.
