Not being able to give vast details I'd like some input on a case in which I am the surveyor of record.
Facts:
Title search performed by attorney reveals a 100' electric utility right of way....I find the very same in my research. No additional right of way found anywhere on record.
100' right of way surveyed on ground and power pole locations used to center properly, the 1928 original survey line unable to be located with any certainty.
Owner of right of way complains when building is constructed a few feet from right of way....claims additional 40' of right of way citing "industry standard". Claims anyone should know that were the transmission line poles to fall they would hit anything constructed nearby.
Owner of right of way claims the surveyor, me, should have called their office to find out what their right of way was and where it is.
Owner was maintaining approx. 150' of row and kept trees clear in said area. ROW agreement allows any tree to be cut that could fall into right of way or on equipment. No other stipulation is mentioned, trees only.
Owner even has their own map on record showing 100' width...no additional 40' on it.
Lawsuit is preventing corporate business from occupying and using property, they can't even get an electric hookup(of course), and client is understandably extremely upset. Client claims a one million dollar per day damage.
Has anyone heard of something like this before or heard a utility company use the term "industry standard" even though there is ZERO evidence on record of the additional 40' they claim? I'm really at a loss here and my frustration is at fusion bomb levels.
Seems to me that the record, is the record.
Let the lawyers battle it out.
What state? I wonder if they are claiming some sort of statutory right of way width?
North Carolina.....they've said nothing about any statutory right of way, only used the term "industry standard" over and over again.
Well, there's the "Four Corners" legal doctrine: That is, for legal purposes including that of determining intent, only that which is within the bounds of the "Four Corners" of the document apply.
I'm no lawyer, but I would say that the utility is likely to get what's in the conveying document and nothing more, except perhaps for a healthy invoice for their opponent's legal services on top of damages, depending on the state.
I would even speculate that the utility may be liable for any damages their equipment does to anything outside of that easement, which may be their underlying motivation for increasing clear distance.
There may be exceptions for certain utilities depending on your state.
You mileage my vary.
Do you know what voltage the transmission line is? The necessary right of way/easement width would increase as the voltage increases.
Ohio "Typical Right of Way Widths"
Minnesota "Typical Right of Way Widths"
Duke Energy "Typical Right of Way Widths"
Great River Energy "Typical Right of Way Widths"
PG&E "Typical Right of Way Widths"
It appears from my quick Google search that row widths used to be controlled by install and maintenance needs, where now consideration is being given to the electromagnetic field that the transmission line generates, in order to avoid costly class action lawsuits. Maybe that is where the industry standard comes into play. There is probably a very specific formula used to determine how wide the ROW needs to be, given the voltage/configuration.
There may be guidelines and standards here that specify what the industry standard is for right of way widths.
National Electric Safety Code
One last Edit.. although this PDF was created for a project in a foreign country, they refer to the US NESC standards. It actually looks fairly straight forward to calculate the min. required width. I'm not saying that this would affect your records research liability, but it would be a way to determine what "Industry Standard" really is. Interesting stuff.
Setbacks May Be Affected By Easements
In some jurisdictions there are specific setbacks from easement lines and in some the easement line is treated as property line for setback purposes.
Whoever developed the design plan is responsible for that error.
Those alleged industry standards may be supported by specific court decisions.
I have seen numerous cases where there are multiple parallel easements, and the actual constructed utility may or may not be centered in any one of several or centered in the overall easement.
It is also possible that the utility holds additional easements that were not recorded.
A million dollars a day is most likely an unreasonable figure, but it is doubtful a surveyor could pay the reasonable figure anyway.
Paul in PA
Have them show you the document granting them authority over the additional 40'. This would have to come out during discovery I would think. Though I'm not an attorney, I find it hard to believe 'Industry Standard' is a legally binding term.
Show me the document.
Surely there is an updated title report, does it mention the wider width?
No, only the 100'.
That's exactly what I told their attorney to no avail.
Tell them that it your "industry standard" to follow what is of public record, and not whatever internal "wants and wishes" doctrine that they throw out. Tell them that you are a Land Surveyor, not a mind reader.
Setbacks May Be Affected By Easements
Thankfully I did not do the design but oddly enough that party has yet to be blamed.
Don
Have you followed the power lines in Google Earth (both directions) from your site to see how other structures are located with respect to the utility RW of record?
Yes I have but no other structures abutting ROW for miles. This is a very rural site that was only chosen for proximity to major highway.
