I try to write the field notes with enough information that the plat is adequately described in case (and it often happens) the field notes are filed without the plat.
In this case, a 15 foot wide electric easement and a variable width easement have been prepared for the client with field notes on sheet 1 and plat on sheet 2. As is required by TBPLS, both sheets acknowledge each other's existence by use of the sheet numbers (sheet 1 of 2, etc.)
The client just called and asked for the sheet numbers to be removed and intends only to file the plat. I am trying to think of a reason that this is not ok, but off the top of my head, I can see no reason why field notes must be issued. I suppose I need to go reread the rules and see if I don't see otherwise.
If it is what he wants and it isn't a rule violation, I will do it. I think it is unusual though. His logic is that a l**yer told him that field notes have a tendency to screw things up. I suppose written description leaves no doubt as to the intent of the easement. :-S
I don't see any rule against issuing plat only and some rules reference "if a description is written". So I think I am ok with this. Just not used to it.
I think you'll find the strict interpretation of the rule states that if your survey depends on both sheets, then they must acknowledge each other. However, if each can stand independently, then I think you could get by with them not acknowledging each other. In other words, if the plat doesn't require the field notes to make some point about the boundary that isn't on the plat (such as you bearing basis or the description of the monuments you found) or vice versa, then you should be fine. If the plat doesn't give all of the calls, and you left some to the field notes, then they need to reference one another.
As a rule, we have a statement on the plat and field notes that says "See plat also" or "See field note description also".
Great to meet you @ the TSPS Convention Andy,
What is not clear to me in your post is if this plat and description are solely describing easements (or accompanying another survey).
The board states that each "document" (plat or sketch/description/report) shall reference each other. For any easement I describe, there is a Sketch to Accompany Easement Description #???? which is the plat or sketch, as an attachment with the description, numbered in succession as you have done.
The description is the controlling document, including intent in the preamble, with the sketch to illustrate the layout of the description.
I had one incident several years back where I had described an easement adjoining a proposed section of a subdivision. The description stated in the preamble that it was a buffer easement, and it referenced the separate sketch. The developer took the sketch only since it included an acreage and calls, and CONVEYED it to the HOA with the front end docs drawn up by attorneys. My only defense to this act was since the sketch referenced the description, the intent of describing an easement would have been proven by the task itself, if investigated, but it still appeared as though I had composed a "title" tract for conveyance. Otherwise, why would fieldnotes "screw things up"?
I should have added, if you clearly label the sketch as an easement (specifically the type), my example situation might not arise.
I agree, when you attach your description to the plat and/or one plat to another plat, and attach the plat to other paperwork they must all be filed together.
You clients wants something different, even though it is showing the same as the original, it makes the new plat just that, another plat and not a revised plat.
I know timber companies, pipeline companies and utility companies only file a plat in most cases without a description.
FWIW, it is common practice around here to never record a plat even when it is the description on recorded subdivision lots. They will take the preamble from the PLAT SHOWING and use as the description.
:'(
My plat says "See written description"
My description says "See Plat"
I've never had a request to take either off, partly because I bury it in the description.
That's it exactly, Mr. Harris. I have issued the plat by itself with no description.
The page numbering doesn't really matter in this case as the description has been deleted. I have issued plats in the past with the description printed on the face of the plat and that too needs no "second part reference". In this case, there is only the drawing and I see no rule that says a metes and bounds description must be provided. I think it is unusual, but that is the way the client asked for it.
As you state, this does seem to be a petroleum industry standard. I find it a royal pain in the rear when I am following other's easements because invariably the quality of the record is lacking or in some cases, the surveyor has not adequately tied to the subject tract boundary, in my opinion, which makes it hard for me to correctly place the easement.
I wonder if they do it intentionally to the allow a for sloppiness in construction of the the utitlities on the ground.
after reading the rules again, I don't think I agree with myself after all. There doesn't seem to be an exception for completely self-standing plats or descriptions. I must have remembered incorrectly.
> after reading the rules again, I don't think I agree with myself after all. There doesn't seem to be an exception for completely self-standing plats or descriptions. I must have remembered incorrectly.
Well, as I understand the intention of the rule, it is to make sure that some survey product that actually requires the information on some accompanying document to meet the requirements of the Minimum Technical Standards, such as a written description accompanying a map, mentions the other necessary documents. Just mentioning that a map was prepared that happens not to be of record is poor practice because it leaves a question mark hanging in the air that shouldn't be.
As to whether to describe a parcel by a map or by a written description, one important consideration is legibility. Written descriptions tend to be highly legible since the reproduction processes that the County Clerks use are geared up for normal size fonts. Sometimes maps don't fare so well.
I had an O&G client tell me, 5 years after having begun working for him, quit writing descriptions. We never file them and always file the parcel plat. LOL! Works for me now!
Maybe I phrased my question wrong.
For the record, when I make a multi-part survey, I always refer to the various parts.
The actual question is whether a metes and bounds description is required. I think I have satisfied myself that they are not.
I don't like not having a written description, but the client probably wouldn't file them anyway. I think the written description, as Kent suggests, maintains its readability better than a drawing and helps to supplement the plat.
And after they get reduced, photocopied six times and then scanned into the county records, they aren't good for much.
The metes and bounds are on your plat (survey sketch) as lines labelled with the bearing/distance and adjacent owners. What is not on your plat is the narrative description of the metes and bounds and I don't know of any rule that would requires that.
