I'm surveying a small parcel out of a larger tract so my client can get a loan for a turkey building. Reading through the deed, which hasn't changed in years, constantly quit claim down the family line since the 1890's. The dead calls out for the south 10 ac. of frac. sec. 5 east of the road way, the south 35 ac. of frac. sec. 4 east of the west sec. line and an additional piece 486' x 60' north of the 10 ac. out of sec. 5. Easy enough to diffine. Sec. corners,Greenville Treaty line (south line of Frac. Sec. 4&5)and road center lines are well monumented. The deed then call out all three pieces joined into one with a description that when you run it around calls out for the 10ac. & 35ac. pieces but call out for 45.43ac. when it should be 45.669ac. Reads like a lawyer written description.
Any way the county I'm working in has a requirement that if your taking a piece away from a tract and will by leaving a piece under 20ac. you must survey the cut out and the remainder. The reviewer is telling my that I must survey all the holdings in sec. 5 (10ac + 486x60) since it'll be under 20ac. My contention is that there was never a 10.669 ac. tract. Either they're left seperate or the piece is 45.669ac. leaving me with a remainder well over the 20ac. The reviewer said a couple years ago they had found the 486'x60' piece, hadn't been listed as my clients before so they just tagged it onto the 10ac. piece, that leaves me with under 20ac.
I start to argue thats insane, the auditor (yes, the county engineer has abdicated his review authority, not supposed to be so in Ohio but go with the flow) cannot just willy nilly make up parcels but shut my mouth, told him I'd contact my client and see what he wants to do. Client thought it over and already has the funding for the building in motion and doesn't want to slow things up so he told my to go ahead, but he would by fighting this with the auditor (they know each other somehow) because he agrees with me. We'll see how far that goes.
I just completed a survey in an adjoining county that has a rule for anything under 5ac., taking 6ac. total out of a tract that laid in two sec. 8ac. & 4ac. respectfully leaving me with only two acres in on sec. but the parcell itself as a whole was left with 6ac. I guess I just don't understand their reasonning. It gets hard to survey in that county when they're constantly changing the rules. We've started sending them pdfs of what we're trying to accomplish, getting a big thumbs up then they'll come back with something minor that we need to do. Just tell me up front. Only county I have this problem in. I understand I can be a pain but I've been trying to be accommodating. OK, feel better for venting, now I can go back to work.
Isn't the real problem the counties policies? Or is the reviewer intentionally interpreting things just to be difficult? My argument would center around the fact that you are not creating anything new. The tracts already exist.
Gee, that county sounds familiar. Glad I don't do much work there.
The whole Auditor-Engineer thing seems to only work at all if there is an actual P.S. in the loop somewhere other than the county engineer himself. I agree that the rules of each county need to be clearly stated and fairly enforced. Fortunately in Ohio we have a uniform law requiring each county to develop and enforce regulations for surveys and rules for descriptions for conveyance. Unfortunately it has been left up to 88 different counties to reach their own solutions without any real effective oversight.
I'm glad you feel better now. I do too.
Rant off.
Welcome to the fight!!
> Isn't the real problem the counties policies? Or is the reviewer intentionally interpreting things just to be difficult? My argument would center around the fact that you are not creating anything new. The tracts already exist.
The real problem is none of the elected officials want to follow the Ohio Laws and Rules adopted under the laws. Ohio Revised Code, 315.08 Duties of county engineer, is very specific. It says in part:
>The county engineer shall perform for the county all duties authorized or declared by law to be done by a registered professional engineer or registered surveyor, except those duties described in sections 307.37 and 307.38 and Chapters 343., 6103., and 6117. of the Revised Code.
None of the excepted sections refer to tax mapping or review of descriptions.
In May of 2012 The Ohio State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors issued an opinion "Advisory Opinion Regarding the Supervision of Surveying in the County Tax Map Office." That opinion says in part:
>If the county auditor’s staff performs tasks that fall within the definition of surveying, then they must be supervised by a professional surveyor. When decisions are made and direction is given which requires the utilization of special knowledge and skills required of a professional surveyor through education, experience, and examination, then the directions and decisions must be done under the direct supervision of a registered professional surveyor.
The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) section above uses the word SHALL and legal seminars I have attended addressing the legal meaning of SHALL has said this is mandatory. John Francis and I have been discussing this here and on the old board for over a decade. Several times I have mentioned here a paper I presented at two state wide meetings in 2001 and 2002. The wording in the ORC requires all surveying work performed by county employees to be under the direct supervision of the county engineer. No other county office is authorized by the ORC to expend funds to hire personnel and assign them to complete professional surveying duties.
My concern, which I have not previously stated publicly, is that some property owner will get angry and hire a sharp attorney to dig into this. If they catch this detail and contest the taxation documents in one Ohio county because the wrong office is creating the documents required by law, what will be the results?
However, as "Carl Zeiss" and John Francis will confirm I am just an troublesome old man.
