Professional Standards for Setback Certifications

Off the cuff; I see people, that want to compel clients to use their services, under all circumstances, are just looking to collect a fee. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. The law says that's the way it, so that's the way it is. It just doesn't seem morally right to me; aren't supposed to protect the public, not fleece them?

Ian

That is a good explanation. You provided facts gleamed from you observations that support your opinion. The steam setback you describe is different than the setback that hinges upon the location of a boundary line. The stream's location is obvious. The baseball field is obvious. The playground is obvious and so too the Church's construction. We have all come upon boundary evidence that at first blush seems as obvious as the circumstances you describe for the Church, that upon closer inspection was anything but obvious. Then what?

Dane...

Ah, Dane! But that' NOT what the original poster in the CLSA was posting. Re-read the post.

In his case, the building was clearly far from the property line, no matter where the final position put it. Since the setback line was clearly not violated, the OP was asking if we thought it was a violation of standard to report that the setbacks were met.

As I stated further down the thread, if the setbacks were at all in question,significant work mig be required in locating the boundary.

Remember the old saying about if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? Well, to the "expert measurer" everything looks like a boundary survey. That's the difference between a Surveyor and an expert measurer.

Radar - great cartoon! Fit's very well!

Ian

Yes he said that IN ADDITION TO OTHER THINGS.

In unincorporated Contra Costa Co., where I live and conduct a small portion of my business all building permits that add square footage, or any landscaping that must meet setback requirements requires a certification letter.

The letter must state that the formwork for the new square footage or whatever else is being constructed is positioned "in accordance with the approved plans and meets minimum setback requirements."

This is required for any and all construction that falls into the above categories.

Oftentimes I get requests for verification/certification for projects that are nowhere close to the minimum setbacks. True case in point: I had a project where the minimum setback was 20', and the project was over 100' from the property line.

Obviously you need to know where the property lines are to be able to write a letter regarding minimum setbacks. In the case mentioned above I can write this letter without taking any equipment out of my truck. Merely getting the underlying maps and pacing a few things off and I can state definitively that the construction is outside of the minimum setbacks.

Is this acceptable? Does one have to definitely locate property boundaries to make a statement that minimum setbacks are being met?

I believe that you misunderstand and misconstrue my comments. I have read and re-read this post. I am pretty sure I understand what is being asked. I get the part about it being a looooong way from the property line.

I think the situation described meets the Standard of Practice.

New Paragraph: since we insist on using an ad-hoc system of boundary maintenance it is best to persuade clients to invest in a boundary survey if at all possible but not doing so is not substandard practice, just inadvisable if it can be avoided.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Generally I feel that compliance is a question of Law, and that measurements are a matter of Survey. I would prefer to show my measurements than certify as to compliance. I would certify that my measuring was done in conformity to a standard, whether a published one or a normal standard of care. That's just me.

Backpedal or Hypocrite?

Dane,

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. Are you backpedaling from your characterization of using pacing as a tool in this case being a means of circumventing the proper standard of care just to meet an unreasonably low budget, or were you simply being a hypocrite in your earlier posts at CLSA?

A Matter of Law?

Well, a matter of ordinance, yes.

Are you suggesting, Marc that because it is a "matter of law" that a surveyor is not qualified to state that an improvement lies a greter distance from a property line than the designated setback indicated in the local zoning ordinance on the date of certification?

If the surveyor can't make this statement, who can?

The building inspector? He's neither attorney, specifically trained in law nor surveyor trained to identify boundaries.

The Planning or Building Department Director? Again, neither trained specifically in law or boundary identification.

County Counsel? Well, that person is an attorney, but what do they know about building or boundaries? Besides, they cannot certify to facts reported to them by others, they can only attest that certain thimgs were reported to tjem as facts.

So maybe the County Court level Judge? Now we're just getting ridiculous.

Where is the law that says a surveyor must remain ignorant of all laws yet still is required to follow them?

The fact is, only the surveyor is qualified to identify the boundaries, and the surveyor is just as qualified as anyone in the buildimg department to idemtify the zoning designation of the parcel amd look up the appropriate setback in the local zoning code. Of all those who one might consider to provide this certification, the surveyor is most qualified.

A Matter of Law?

I agree with Mr. Anderson's assessment.

Not because I think surveyors are not capable of measuring from a building to a property line and telling whether the distance is more than 25 feet. Rather, I think Mr. Anderson is saying that how a particular bureaucrat chooses to interpret and apply the law sometimes blows in the wind.

I had a case here where a city planner decided that for setback purposes the "front" of a building was the side of a building where no one entered or exited. This despite the fact that his "front" had an elevation difference of 40 feet and an 8' tall chain link fence with no access point from the street to the building.

Be careful and stick to matters of fact. You never know when the bureaucrat will pull something like that out of their backside.

Larry P

Evan

I remain unchanged in my position. My position is that we are obliged to follow the board rules. I see nothing in your example or Ian's example that are inconsistent with board rules, but these examples are not the same factset as presented in the OP.

I like Marc's comment very much as well as Larry's of being careful and sticking to matters of fact.

Not suggesting that anyone isn't being careful or sticking to matters of fact.

A Matter of Law?

Larry,
Here, the "front of the house is considered to be the narrowest side of the lot. Doesn't matter where the "front" really is. WIERD

Joe

Board Rules

Dane,

You say that you are just trying to point out that the Board Rules should be properly followed.

Then look these up and ponder their meaning:

404.2(a)(1)(B) – refers to assessing what is being asked and whether or not I, as a surveyor can provide the service as asked.

404.2(a)(2)(A)- Selecting the methods, procedures, and tolerances of the field work. How precise does my data need to be to effectively provide the service or answer the question being asked?

404.2(a)(2)(C) - refers to deciding how you will answer the question being asked and what information must be provided to answer. Will I provide a letter & a sketch, or only a letter. If the question is simply “Does the improvement meet setback requirements?”, will I answer only what is asked with an affirmative or negative, or will I go beyond the question, providing extra info of by how far the improvement clears or encroaches upon the setback.

404.2(a)(2)(D) – refers to the specifics of the info given. If I am going to state a quantified spatial relationship of the improvement to the setback, will I report it to the nearest 1', the nearest .1', or the nearest .01'? Will I provide a distance along the boundary from the nearest corner to a point at rt angle to the closest point of the improvement to the boundary; to what precision will I report that?

404.2(a)(2)(E) – Is the data I have sufficient to address what has been asked of me?

The last 4 all in the context of decisions made which have the potential of creating “a hazard to life, health, property, or public welfare”.

415 – Practice within your area of competence. There are many aspects to this. You must be generally competent to provide the service asked for; and you must also be competent to recognize how the specific circumstances presented by the project at hand affect the decisions regarding best or most appropriate methods to meet the requirements of the service to be provided. One may be competent by training and experience to render a service in one set of circumstances because one is thoroughly familiar with the methods appropriate to those circumstances, but incompetent to render the same service under differing circumstances because one cannot recognize how those circumstances would change the criteria for most appropriate methodology.

One may be incompetent to provide services in a particular locale or region because one does not understand what is being asked as a service or the question to be answered, may not know where to go for clarification (or even recognize that clarification is needed) because one does not know or care to determine the reason for the service or question asked. If one does not even endeavor to determine what is actually being asked for, one is not operating at a professional level and is by definition, incompetent as a professional.

Code of Conduct, Representations:
476(c)(7) - A licensee shall only express professional opinions that have a basis in fact or experience or accepted land surveying principles.
Boundary corners are identified by accepted land surveying principles. Often, they can be identified without measurement. Reporting their specific spatial relationships to each other and quantifying the dimensions of the lines between require measurement. Those spatial relationships to the precision required of a boundary survey may or may not be germane to the question asked of the surveyor. Identification of the service or question being asked is a matter of fact. Where the boundary lies, once corners have been identified, is a matter of fact. Where the improvement lies is a matter of fact. The amount of setback is a matter of fact defined by zoning code. How far the improvement is from the boundary is a matter of fact. The precision to which that fact needs to be reported, and the methods required to meet that precision is a matter of experienceand may be a metter of fact. Any measurement method which is sufficient to reliably meet those precision needs are based on accepted land surveying principles and one’s experience in employing them.

476(c)(10)- A licensee shall not falsely or maliciously injure or attempt to injure the reputation or business of others.
Do you think that stating that someone advocates guessing as a basis of professional opinion, operates below the standard of care because of suggesting certain less precise methods are appropriate under certain circumstances, and asserting that one is in violation of the Board Rules (an actionable offense against one’s license) without addressing the points made and without specifics or reference to back up the assertions might be falsely or maliciously attempting to injure another’s reputation?
I do, and that’s why you’re getting it with both barrels. You have avoided addressing the circumstances and specifics I’ve given under which I’ve suggested less precise methods may be appropriate. You have said that you are talking about following some “Rules” and acknowledging where there may be exceptions to the rules. The only rules you have attempted to refer to are 1 Board Rule (§476(c)(7)), and have not addressed my comments on that but instead reverted to accusing me of guessing. And so, at this point, in this conversation, I am done trying to educate you because you seem determined to be uneducable. Instead, I’ll point out your incompetence to opine on the question asked except under circumstances you’ve encountered in your very limited, very narrow experience.

I suggest that you open your eyes to the fact that there are circumstances that are vastly different from those you commonly encounter in your urbanized environment and that those with far greater and broader experience (Wilson, Frame, RAM, myself, others I may have overlooked), who are generally recognized as practicing at a high level of competence and integrity may have experience and knowledge that you can learn from. It’s OK to express an incorrect opinion, and even to argue it until your arguments have been answered. But it is not OK to impugn the integrity of those who are expressing a contrary opinion, especially when they are trying to educate you. At some point it should become obvious that it is time to just shut up and learn!

476(c)(11)- A licensee shall not misrepresent data and/or its relative significance in any professional land surveying report.
The manner of reporting, per the methods I’ve described, under the circumstances described as appropriate for those methods does not misrepresent the significance of any data which are pertinent to the question answered. Nor would the opinion I provide in answer to the question be misrepresentative of any data for any foreseeable use of the opinion given.

On the other hand, if a surveyor were to inform a client that a full boundary survey is required to answer the question of setback compliance when the question can be definitively and accurately answered with far less effort, the surveyor would be misrepresenting the relative significance to the report or letter which would address the question. In the scenario I presented on the CLSA forum, that would have been a difference of $18,000 or more, just because a bureaucrat needed to check a box and paper the file that he got a setback letter from a surveyor. That might be seen as deliberately trying to pad your bottom line and be characterized as fraud in your practice.

Debate about methods is a perfectly valid topic of these forums. That is one of the ways we learn from each other’s experience and insights. It is poor form to come out of the gates, as you did, making assertions that others are falling below the standard of care and violating state law without being certain of your position and being able to back it up, especially when those you are accusing have reputations of operating at a high level of professional responsibility. It is exceedingly poor form to ignore the points made by those people you are arguing against and then simply repeat you assertions made in ignorance.

If you wish to engage in debate with those more experienced and better trained, you had better 1) be prepared to change your opinion as you become aware of facts you were previously unaware of (may include circumstances you have considered, methods you are unfamiliar with, insights you have previously overlooked); 2) be very circumspect about calling their practices and reputations into question; and if you do intend to make such assertions, 3) be prepared to be able to address the points made by those you debate and back up your assertions with reference to, and proper interpretation of the law and/or recognized text or treatise which shows the practice to be substandard with respect to the service provided under the circumstances existent at the time and place those services are provided; and 4) be prepared to take a counterargument as blunt as the statements you make.

If you are unwilling to consider additional facts and assess how or if your opinion should be altered, if you are unable to back up your opinion in addressing points made by others, if you are unwilling to address those points at all, you aren't expressing or holding a professional opinion, you are clinging to dogmatic belief.

If you are in need of remedial training to know the difference between accuracy, precision, an estimate, and a guess, I suggest that you get and read Errors in Practical Measurement in Science, Engineering, and Technology by B. Austin Barry.

Now shut up, read carefully, and see if you are actually educable by trying to learn something!

How could you possibly justify saying it is "in accordance with the approved plan" without actually measuring. What are the tolerances for "in accordance"?

I'm Surprised Larry

That you would not think to seek clarification from said bureaucrat as to which side of the parcel might be considered front, side, or back if there is any question.

Generally, I wouldn't offer a certification if there is a different setback for different lines and there were any question as to which line was which.

But then again, if the difference is a 30' setback on the front and 10' on the sides, and the improvement is clearly several hundred feet from any boundary line, the issue of someone having a different interpretation than me is moot.

Granted, the "in accordance with the approved plan" can have very broad interpretation and IMO, requires a full as-built survey of current conditions to make any statements that cover any statements as to location with respect to an existing plan.

That phrase, "in accordance with the approved plan", could also be interpreted as pertaining to items that a surveyor has no way of knowing or certifying to, such as the steel within any already poured foundations, any underground improvements which are no longer visible from the surface, adherence to design details which are outside of the surveyor's expertise to assess.

What most jurisdictions are looking for, and what my previous comments (go see CLSA forum) pertain to is simply the question of setback compliance. If the question of compliance with plans is asked, I would first explain the difference in the level of effort required to truthfully and fully answer that question, and then clarify if that is what they really need answered.

I'm Surprised Larry

> That you would not think to seek clarification from said bureaucrat as to which side of the parcel might be considered front, side, or back if there is any question.
>
> Generally, I wouldn't offer a certification if there is a different setback for different lines and there were any question as to which line was which.
>
> But then again, if the difference is a 30' setback on the front and 10' on the sides, and the improvement is clearly several hundred feet from any boundary line, the issue of someone having a different interpretation than me is moot.

I did seek clarification. In fact, I asked said bureaucrat before doing anything on that project. I also asked that the determination, however crazy and inane, be put in writing. I did so because I have too many times seen determinations that could only be called insane.

By doing as I did I was able to stick to quoting facts on my map. I showed the distance from the proposed improvement to the proposed property line and referred to a letter in my files indicating that the setbacks shown were according to a particular individual and were set forth in a letter to me on a particular day.

Larry P

That's What You Should Have Done

Larry,

You did what I would have done in seeking clarification and making reference to the letter from the bureaucrat.

By showing the improvement and its distance from the boundary, and by also showing the setback per ordinance and with reference to the clarification letter you recieved, you did certify as to whether the improvement complied or did not comply by virtue of the representation on your map, presuming the map contained some manner of certification that it met whatever standards were required to be met.

Evan

"I do not question that you or Mr Page would dispatch this type of professional service properly. This is because of how you approach the problem. If I understand your approach, you concern yourself with what is required to make a proper representation of a particular opinion."

This is a quote from MY post on CLSA. You have misread and misunderstood my post to that thread ENTIRELY if you take personally my comments and believe I am impugning you professionally.

Dane

That statement and other protestations of "I'm just trying to learn", etc. are transparently false given the 9 personal attack posts with over 20 individual clear statements or insinuations of unethical behavior and substandard work directed toward me by you.

You want to put some substance and honesty behind that statement, go back and start over, engaging in honest discussion of what I've already posted. Until then, you're just showing yourself to be disingenuous and questionably competent.