My question is - Do you as a surveyor feel you have more lee-way when it comes to utility easement locations and their definition compared to property boundaries or do you see them as equal or close in ramifications?
Which has more weight in an easement description - “centered on existing” or bearings and distances?
I am currently doing a boundary survey and replat of public borough (counties) property, over the last 30 years the government has been granting utility easements across several lots due to development. Upon researching the easements trying to get them on the plat I have found a couple that have ambiguous descriptions that were not done by a surveyor. These descriptions do not have enough information to plat without making several assumptions or corrections as to their definable location. The borough wants me to make these changes without including the utility as a signer on the plat and I am having a hard time with this. I also am having questions about an easement with a description that includes “centered on existing “ as location but then gives bearing and distances around the exterior. The utility has moved so I am unsure as to which has more weight.
I have no problem working out questionable property boundary descriptions and rendering my opinion as to the location. This type of work, I believe is the basis of why there are surveyors in the first place. This is what everyone wants to know and is high on importance level.
Utility easements in my area are viewed entirely different than property boundaries; they are more of a necessary evil and are given little attention to detail even from the utility companies themselves.
I have approached the utility companies about the problem and they are not interested, they made the comment that if the borough gives them trouble about the descriptions then they can just remove the utility. For whatever reason the borough government and the utilities feel like this is a surveyor's problem and shouldn’t involve them, the borough wants me to “fix” the utility easement descriptions for the new plat. I feel like I am setting myself up for trouble in the future by doing this.
The "centered on existing" holds all the weight, in my opinion. The deed is, in a sense, without error with that phrase.
If they want the problem "fixed", then they need to dig up the utility so you can locate it. In any new description, the same language "centered on existing" should be prevalent in your new description, with the metes-&-bounds being subservient to that.
The fact that they would have to dig it up, might be the breaking point where they hire a different surveyor or decide not to have it done. But I think that is the only real way to properly redescribe the utility.
I tend to be serious about the importance of correctly describing easements.
In this case I would have the utility or the one call service locate the existing lines and show the lines on the plat "as located by xxxx on or about xx/xx/2013, center of a xx foot wide easement of record in xxxx" etc. etc.
Centered on existing certainly has more weight because there is no disputing the existence of a correctly located utility line.
Many utility easements are not centered on the line. In fact, most of the one I prepare are 10-20 foot corridors and the line may fall anywhere within it.
I would normally agree that "centered upon existing" would hold more weight, but you said the utility has moved. I believe the easement remains in its original place, so without evidence of the utility's original location, you would have to hold the bearings and distances.
> My question is - Do you as a surveyor feel you have more lee-way when it comes to utility easement locations and their definition compared to property boundaries or do you see them as equal or close in ramifications?
An easement location can affect the fee owners use of the property just as much as an exterior boundary can, so easement boundaries equal in ramification.
> Which has more weight in an easement description - “centered on existing” or bearings and distances?
That is a call to a monument. It trumps any bearing or distance call.
> I would normally agree that "centered upon existing" would hold more weight, but you said the utility has moved. I believe the easement remains in its original place, so without evidence of the utility's original location, you would have to hold the bearings and distances.
:good:
I missed that. Centered on existing is still the controlling call, but now a person has to determine where the "existing" was at the time it was described. Chances are the actual metes-and-bounds is probably the best available evidence as to the original existing location.
Yes, it has moved and that is what is different about this situation for me. I have had several situations where the utility has a duel description such as centered on pole line, 10’each side or such. Usually I like to describe easements that do not adjoin property boundaries in this fashion, defining the centerline by bearings and distances and then give width. If I find “due to a locate” that a utility is not located in the center of an easement that is described by center I usually don’t go through the process of correcting the description unless it passes outside of its easement. In this case the original utility described with bearings and distances and then “centered on existing” has moved entirely outside of this easement. This is a different survey because it is state land originally patented from us Gov. The state is giving it to the borough and the state is controlling the survey but the borough has to pay the costs.
I am telling the borough and the state that I need help defining the location of several easements and they are not responding. They are giving me blank “I don’t understand” stare and expecting me to come up with all the answers.
Thanks very much for the input.
I am realizing through this discussion that I have more of a hangup with the management problems of this project than the actual professional decisions.
You can not abritrarily alter what is on paper and recorded. You can create descriptions that others can use to change from what is already recorded to what needs to be recorded now. It is up to the dominant and servient interests to agree to the changes and get the paper work handled correctly. You are merely the first step.
wonderful wording on what i am trying to explain to clients. Will try this and see what response they have.
> I would normally agree that "centered upon existing" would hold more weight, but you said the utility has moved. I believe the easement remains in its original place, so without evidence of the utility's original location, you would have to hold the bearings and distances.
Mr. Billingsley has it. Unless you have better information (physical or corroborated parol evidence) as to the location of the utility as it existed when the easement deed was executed, the dimensions recited in the description would be your best evidence as to that location. Being a totally artificial feature, a call to the feature "as existing" does not cause the easement to float to wherever the utility company decides to move their line to like an ambulatory water boundary any more than describing a boundary "along an existing fence" allows one owner to increase the size of his parcel by moving the fence from time to time..
"As existing" provides correction for any mistakes in the bearings and distances placed in the description if any were to be in error, and gives clear meaning to the parties' intent. But a moved feature is no longer "as existing" when that intent was described and executed.
As to having more "leeway" or not, I don't see that as being a relevant question. Both problems (boundary location and easement location) are simply matters of weighing and deciding upon what you believe to be the location that the greatest body of evidence supports. You, as the licensee in responsible charge decide when the search for evidence has been sufficient, and you apply your judgment as to where that evidence leads you.
