This will be interesting to watch.....
?ÿ
?ÿ
https://ipels.idaho.gov/forms_pubs/20190701Lawbook.pdf
look at the high lighted portion of page 3
So if you find a corner with 5 additional corners around it you "have a duty to notify other licensees of a material
discrepancy prior to setting monuments."?ÿand, "If a monument is to be set at a location that represents a material discrepancy with an existing monument at any corner of record, land surveyors must also notify in writing all affected
adjoining land owners and the Board prior to setting the new monument."
Knowing the way some surveyors operate I can tell you right now it ain't gonna work. ?????ÿ
Well,,,,,,,this should cut down on the number of pin cushions.?ÿ
?ÿ
Wow! That's borderline "extremism".
I wonder what "silverhaired Lucas" would say.....
I like the idea of making 'em set corners, (as opposed to ..... To a point, from which a 1/2" rebar bars S 17degrees14 minutes39secondsW 3.8954 feet, (did not accept rebar).
But, contacting the affected owners could require a title search, as there may be owners, that don't know they are owners, such as estates, probate, and big piles of heirs.
Boy. It's getting going.
Maybe it WAS Lucas that drafted that legislation!
Carry on.
N
The rule should be 10 times longer, and cover how hard the new surveyor has to work to find all these adjoinders and previous surveyors.
Agreed. I believe that in most pin cushion cases the PLS doesn't know about the other monuments.
It is all good stuff, but I fear that the result will be a widening of the cost gap between those willing to skirt the laws and those that do it right.
?ÿ
I see that Idaho still uses the term "material discrepancy." Do they define this term? If not, who decides what constitutes a "material discrepancy"?
What's 'extreme' is the mathemagicians that can't bear to accept anyone elses monuments. It's out of hand.
The rule stops them from setting pins until the situation is resolved or notices run the course. They can't use calculated postions as other rules prevent that.
The language is plain. Trying to read problems into it might sound cool, but it won't work out well in the long run. Kicking the can down the road is no longer an option.
Something similar has been floated in NY legislature past several years but hasn't gone anywhere.?ÿ Would require surveyor to notify all adjoiners if filing a map that would change the tax map (presumably meaning disagreement with previous interpretation of deeds/maps).?ÿ I argue the tax department should do that, seems a government function.
Between this and entry notification requirements things are getting stacked further toward large companies that can perform volume surveying and seem to be predominately the pin cushion culprits in the first place.?ÿ Getting so you would need a full time person just to do the relations and notifications to the public and then regulatory checks that the map complies with all the board requirements, and sole or small operators can't really absorb that cost (many aren't making it as it is).
These regulations may seem reasonable, but only in the context of a professional license that isn't protecting the public.?ÿ Does the regulation really regulate an unknowing practitioner into a proper determination??ÿ Or does it just encourage silence when a problem is found??ÿ Wouldn't it be smarter to require more knowledge of land boundaries in order to achieve licensure??ÿ Or is it just that the experts can't provide the service at the going rate so get rid of them entirely so the problems never surface??ÿ I guess it's modern life, never see the doctor and the insurance company tells us whether we need a test or not.
It is all good stuff, but I fear that the result will be a widening of the cost gap between those willing to skirt the laws and those that do it right.
?ÿ
But with this rule, if they seal a plat with a virtual corner or you find they pincushioned without notice there is an easily proven violation to help weed out the bad practices.
What exactly is "Material Discrepancy"?
As I read it, if I find 5 pins within tenths of each other I am free to set a 6th pin since there is no material discrepancy. I cannot say any other's opinion is wrong since I most likely have not found all the evidence they used, and there is always some error in a measurement.
The Biblical doctrine is "let he who is without error cast the first stone."
BTW, I note that the Board does not want to require engineers to pass the fundamentals of engineering exam but give them credit for having done non technical work instead.
So they are wrong on many points.
Paul in PA
I suppose reading the highlighted text with zero knowledge of our laws and standard of care could lead you to read it that way. I suggest my fellow Idaho practitioners read a bit deeper.
As for the FE statement, huh?
A material discrepancy can’t be an objective or quantitative definition as it varies based on the situation. It should be a PLS making the decision using his best professional judgement.
If a PLS determines a material discrepancy does not exist, he shouldn’t be free to set an additional pin. He should accept the existing pin. Or in this case not feel free to set an additional pin, but rather to accept 1 of the five existing pins that he feels best represents the location of the corner on the ground based on the evidence he has collected/been provided.
Instead of “feeling free” to set a sixth pin, I believe you should be precluded from setting a sixth pin.
https://ipels.idaho.gov/newsletters/SpringSummer2018.pdf Page 11 discusses the material discrepancy question. it's basically anything other than the originally set monument. I am glad they finally answered this question as us surveyors had many different interpretations. Measurements have nothing to do with a material discrepancy as some had thought.
The term "material discrepancy" is so vague it would be torn to hell and back in a courtroom. ?????ÿ
If you don't find a material discrepancy why on earth would you set a new monument at a new location?
If you don't know the identity of the adjoining parcels you don't have enough information to make a boundary decision. If you know the identity of the the parcels it doesnt take much effort to send a certified letter to the address the tax bill goes to. Do you think this regulation requires something moire than that?
You may be right, but the term "material discrepancy" is very commonly found in statutes and regulations in recording states.
I like it. It's definitely a step in the right direction.
Why does there have to be a material discrepancy?
Admittedly, I don't know Idaho laws but at a glance I wonder why not replace
"If a monument is to be set at a location that represents a material discrepancy with an existing monument..."
with
"If a monument is to be set at a location that is different from an existing monument which purports to represent that same corner..."
I have no doubt that this option was considered but I'm curious why the "material discrepancy" qualifier was included - any discrepancy merits discussion between the surveyors surveying the property.
Full paragraph is shown here for those that haven't read it:
06.Obligation to Affected Landowners.Land surveyors have a duty to set monuments at the corners of their client??s property boundaries in compliance with 54-1227, Idaho Code. Per Subsection 005.04 above, land surveyors also have a duty to notify other licensees of a material discrepancy prior to setting monuments that represent a material discrepancy with a prior survey. If a monument is to be set at a location that represents a material discrepancy with an existing monument at any corner of record, land surveyors must also notify in writing all affected adjoining land owners and the Board prior to setting the new monument. (4-11-19)
?ÿ