I have set more than a few and the PLS always knew, but that is only my experience.
I think it's a needed and long overdue change. This effort isn't perfect because nothing ever is, and I'm sure there will be some unintended consequences. I don't think it's going to generate any problems that can't be handled. Unscrupulous practitioners will likely remain so, and the status quo will remain until the board starts policing up licenses.
- I do know that if I was in court, I wouldn't want to be up there with a paper pin cushion or a real-life on the ground one using the defense "I didn't think it was a material discrepancy"....?ÿ?ÿ
I can find you dozens of easily proven violations in any state with a half hour of searching the records.
This is an issue in every profession, I am afraid. Doctors, lawyers, etc are not immune. Why do you think so many die from medical malpractice? (Which we fund in higher medical costs to pay for the insurance.) EVERYONE is loath to accuse anyone else of wrong doing, as are surveyors. We do not believe most issues are because of evil intent. Creating more violations is not the path because most substandard operators are already violating plenty of rules.
Finding better ways to gently help those that need guidance is useful. Identify, rebuke, mentor, and grow those that are substandard; brutally eliminate from the profession those who are rogue and refuse to change.
?ÿ
And this rule will create a HUGE liability for every surveyor. Any $2500 lot survey (which is already being under cut for $500 under the table to "just set some pins") could blow up to $10000. Essentially, you (and your client, because you will write your contracts that way) are on the hook to solve any boundary issue. So, people will go with the guy with a truck and that takes $500 cash, or they just will not get things surveyed.
Contacting all the adjoiners isn't trivial. It would take at least an hour of work. And that is just the start to comply with that rule.?ÿ
The rule is great in theory, but I predict that it will only make it harder and more expensive to get your lot surveyed.
You can call a dozen survey outfits around here, and most of them do not do small single lot surveys for cold call customers. There isnt any profit.?ÿ
Do you know if "material discrepancy" is defined?
If there is guidance, then I could see this being useful, as it would put everyone on the same page. Any surveyor that is doing their job will contact whoever they are disagreeing with. We want to make sure we are getting it right.
I have a problem with "before" since it guarantees a second visit, which would blow the budget on just about any small residential survey. My issue with increasing the costs isnt because I dont want to charge the money, but there is a limit on what people will spend, and I think we should be careful about the impact on the cadaster of less surveys being performed. (And the impact of more ghost "goat-stakes" being set by some guy in a truck with a craigslist ad.)
Yeah, many pin-cushions are the result of a field crew not finding (for whatever reason) a corner that might or might not have been found by a PLS. You want to make a lot of this go away? Mandate that any monument be set under the direct, personal, and visual supervision of the signing PLS. That would increase costs, but it would perhaps be the best option for dealing with a LOT of issues. (This is not viable, but I say it to highlight what I find to be the real struggle. We have good crews that really care, but there is something about putting your name on it that makes a real difference.)
Requiring an LS would clean up a few, but I see this going after a different problem. Some surveyors just can't bring themselves to honor work done by others. They have to prove some magical ability far superior to all who have gone before and throw the world into chaos at every opportunity.
If this takes care of a handful of those I'll be happy..
When a man has had a training in one of the exact sciences, where every problem within its purview is supposed to be susceptible of accurate solution, he is likely to be not a little impatient when he is told that, under some circumstances, he must recognize inaccuracies, and govern his action by facts which lead him away from the results which theoretically he ought to reach. Observation warrants us in saying that this remark may frequently be made of surveyors. - Justice Thomas McIntyre Cooley
That isn't exactly my experience. The more I learn the more I learn how little I knew...and then imagine five years from now and figure I will think the same thing about my current self.
I would rather have statutes that expressly allowed me to determine the location of most boundary lines that I layout, and clearly defined how to do so. In the absence of that, there will always be a tug of war between "deed stakers" and "fence-line" surveyors. As it stands I cannot determine any boundary, legally, I merely place on the ground what evidence shows. What weight do those marks have? Well, if I could determine boundary, then determining that everyone has held those iron pipes for 50 years through interviewing the neighbors would allow me to settle the line right then and there. But that isn't exactly what we are allowed to do, although it is what the public hopes, wishes, and thinks we do.
Applause Idaho
About time
The new spring/summer board publication further clarifies material discrepancy. Seems crystal clear to me. See below, taken from the board publication.
?ÿ
Question 1 Is a record of survey required when replacing lot corner pins?
I frequently have requests from property owners to locate the corners of their property. When I fail to find the
monument marking the corner, I will replace the missing monument. Assuming I am not the surveyor who
platted the subdivision, this will result in a monument with a different cap than that noted on the recorded plat.
Does this constitute a change in the public record that will require a record of survey map to properly document
it?
Answer
The Board has concluded that a ROS is required for replacement of a lot corner where the size, type or
markings on a monument or cap differ from the record. The intent of the "material discrepancy" language in
55-1904(1) Idaho Code is to preserve evidence. This evidence includes the pedigree of monuments purporting
to mark lot corners. There are numerous other circumstances where material discrepancies exist. When you find
a different monument than the latest record or a monument not of record you have found a ??material
discrepancy?. The same is true where the markings on a cap or monument are different than in the record.
The laws, rules and standard of care related to ??material discrepancy? have gradually changed to include
evidence other than measurements. The answers above reflect those changes and describe what is expected by
the Board moving forward.
Note: Board amends 2005 opinion on what is a ??material discrepancy? in land surveying
The statutes of recording of surveys requires that a survey be recorded if it ??discloses a material discrepancy
with previous surveys of record? or if it ??produces evidence or information which varies from, or is not
contained in, surveys of record relating to the public land survey, lost public land corners or obliterated land
survey corners.? The 2005 opinion is no longer valid as it references only error of closure. The Board now is of
the opinion that a material discrepancy should demonstrate a discrepancy that makes a difference in either the
pedigree of the corner such as with a different cap, or a different position of a corner that may adversely affect
landowner??s boundaries for property, lease areas, or easements.
?ÿ?ÿ