In fairness too, the intersection Had recently been completely rebuilt and the ties were added to avoid all traffic and ROW incursions.
@flga-2-2
- Lighter and easier to throw too I suspect. ?????ÿ
Well, obviously they aren't filing corner perpetuation records if they aren't even checking up on the monuments, so that's one spot where they could get in trouble.?ÿ Bad practice though for sure.
I often see the date of field work on a recorded survey, which was then signed and sealed weeks later.?ÿ I would think you would be responsible for making sure there were good monuments on the field date, but not the signing date if that was a reasonable time later (not years, maybe not even months).
Weeks don't even get close to subdivision platting. There is nine months for permitting water, that's if you have perfect timing. Then three more to get through the county. I suppose you could survey two or three times, I don't know anyone who does.?ÿ
?ÿ
I see it happening frequently in our largest metropolitan area, not so much elsewhere. I might consider it if I did the previous work, but would definitely make sure the monuments were still in place.
@bill93?ÿ
We're quibbling over what's reasonable here.?ÿ I've signed and filed surveys where the date of the field survey was over a year prior to my signing.?ÿ But there were many extenuating circumstances beyond my control:
- Was employed by a State Agency that was in less than Bristol condition and suffered from the "dropped ball" syndrome.
- Same Agency rightfully prioritized construction surveying above "paperwork" surveying so preparing and filing surveys after fieldwork completion was low priority.
- Had one situation where a survey spanned several Counties and was filed in two but not the third until several years later due to an oversight, partly my fault, a hand me down project.
- Had a few situations where a State survey passed through Federal Lands so required their review and approval before filing and it took them 6 months to do so.
- The list goes on?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ .
All possible because everybody got their paychecks whether or not the survey was filed in a timely manner, and a "professional courtesy" relationship with the Counties where our surveys were not reviewed prior to filing and some statutes were relaxed because we were a "sovereign" entity.
In private practice I did a survey where I set dozens of monuments with my tag and the contract included filing of an ROS but it was never filed on the insistence of the client.?ÿ It was in a shall we say "sensitive" military base and after submitting the ROS to the DOD for review their security people said no way this information gets into the public record and seized all our field notes & records.?ÿ We countered some of our work delineated their boundary with adjacent landowners but they didn't care.?ÿ We got paid handsomely but it still bothers me my tags are on monuments that some private surveyor may discover and if he/she contacts me I'll have to say "No comment."
So don't immediately blame the surveyor if the field survey date and signing date are excessively disparate; it may be it was beyond the surveyor's control.?ÿ I'll hold the surveyor is attesting to conditions at the date of the field survey, not the date of his/her signature even if the "90 day" statute is exceeded by years.
@mightymoe?ÿ Around here that's handled by deferred monumentation.?ÿ Exterior monumentation has to be in place at the time of final submittal usually backed up by a filed ROS, but interior monumentation is deferred until civil completion of the subdivision, i.e. earthwork, utilities, roadwork, drainage etc.?ÿ Interior monumentation requires a monumentation bond and once the civil completion milestone is reached you have 90 days to place the lot monuments (request for extension on huge subdivisions is usually OK) as shown on your three year old plat.?ÿ Then the County performs an inspection and if the monuments are accurately in place (they usually only randomly check 10-20%) the bond is released to the developer and he is mandated to pay you.?ÿ If you don't place the monuments the County seizes the bond and places the monuments (usually by contract with another surveyor) using the bond money and you get nothing except a bad reputation.
It's a good system where nobody gets screwed and a robust monument array protects the ultimate lot owners.
We have the same thing, it's less formal. Since dirt work and utility installation will destroy the majority of monuments for the internal lot corners they are done post construction.
However, that doesn't include the boundary for the Subdivision and that boundary survey and monumentation predates the preliminary plat filing, which can be many months prior to the final plat.
So I don't go back and redo the boundary and the Section ties before signing the preliminary and final plat. I don't know of anyone who resurveys the boundary over and over. It would have to be done at least three times, preliminary plat, water distribution plat, final plat. I sign all three at different times and they all have the boundary on them.?ÿ
The timing doesn't matter as long as you are meeting your state/platting authority requirements. If there is a significant delay the dates of survey should be on the plat. Your survey should represent the conditions on the date of survey, not the date of signing or approval.?ÿ
The question is not is the monument undisturbed today (the date of signature),?ÿ the question is, was the monument you last saw 15 years ago still there when you surveyed the subdivision 6 months ago.?ÿ
Yes, you should reestablish the obliterated corner from your data, and report what you did on your plat.?ÿ
The problem is when a surveyor doesn't do that, and their survey that purports to represent the situation on the ground today shows ties to a monument that was ripped out 5 years ago and replaced, maybe or maybe not in the same position.?ÿ
There is no reason to measure again if you can determine by other means that nothing has changed.?ÿ
Plenty of the corner records filed state the exact same references at the exact same distances over a span of say ten years.?ÿ Then you, Joe Surveyor, go out with those references in hand and discover only one still exists (if you are lucky) and the others have clearly been gone for most of the time since the first of the corner records were filed.?ÿ I have never heard of a surveyor being called before State Board because of not verifying the references still exist.?ÿ Plenty of surveyors, on the other hand, have been called before the State Board for not filing the references in the first place.?ÿ Is one situation really that different from the other?
Are you required to file a corner record every time you reference the corner, even if there is no change??ÿ
Iowa only requires filing if there is no corner record, you modify/replace the monument, you do not accept the position, or there are insufficient surviving ties.
Yes, sir.?ÿ Every time you use one, even if it was only a short time ago.?ÿ Actually, it's every time you find one whether you end up using it on a job or not.?ÿ So, if you go out to do a little preliminary investigation before creating an estimate and then don't land the job, you are still, technically, supposed to file the report with both the State and the County/Counties.?ÿ Had one where I set the monument and two minutes later another survey firm took a shot on it.?ÿ We each had to file a report,?ÿ Mine showing I set it and theirs showing they found it in place, which was technically true.?ÿ I'm not positive but there's a strong possibility that South Dakota's soon-to-be newest surveyor was there with the other firm.
Not very different, but why file a corner record if you are not reporting that anything has changed??ÿ
?ÿ
I work in a Colonial state (NJ) and don't see that at all.?ÿ What I am seeing more and more are surveys and subdivisions that do not show any markers used to resolve a boundary, and, increasingly noting iron pin or monument to be set.?ÿ Every corner is to be set by State law and control monuments are required to be set in approved subdivisions but most are not returning to set the monuments and pins.?ÿ It's a real problem, I work mostly in an area exploding with development and many newer subdivisions.?ÿ A lack of monumentation has me recreating the wheel, over and over agin.
?ÿ
That does suck. Huge waste of time and effort.
Rally the board or DORA if they have any real effective involvement.?ÿ
It is VERY common in 99% of the surveys in bigger counties in WA as well. Block breakdowns, section breakdowns, etc are shown according to previous surveys by the surveyor or by another surveyor.
I think it requires some though on the process, because there are a number of issues. Monuments being obliterated is not the biggest issue, the issue is what happens if it gets replaced in a different position from the record.
That said, when we look at the other thread about measurement and what we report, I find a lot of value to holding the previous breakdown and boundary of a block whenever possible. That allows for stability in boundaries, which I highly value.?ÿ
But how about this:
If you want to take it a step further...take a look at s http://surveycontrol.bellevuewa.gov
And those coordinates are tied to WSRN (not just in theory as the same datum, but the city shares a CORS with the WSRN. It is very likely that some surveyors just jump out of their trucks with their GPS and start setting boundary.?ÿ
?ÿ
This is the main reason why there are many surveys that I have done where I have not visited the intersection monument of an intersection myself, but instead used the records of survey that previously showed the position.?ÿ
