ROW

Posted by: @mightymoe

↑

Many of these were set in the early 1980's

I've noted that the Oregon DOT stuff prior to c.1980 is pretty much golden, and the stuff post c.2000 is reliable, too. But in between those times, which corresponds to the introduction of desktop computers in our daily work, the product is often cartoonishly inaccurate.  

So essentially every subsequent private surveyor to come along, has just gone ahead and accepted whatever they recovered and ran with it. It's been my experience that with DOT surveys, unless you've done enough work to get a handle on the big picture, it's hard to know exactly what's going on and for a private surveyor doing some little job for a private client who is nickel and diming them, getting that 30,000' view to know how messed up things really are, not a happenin. 

@williwaw 

It's worse than that. Some of the private descriptions missed monumented jogs. For instance, one calls out south 01d west, 1500' along the west ROW line between two ROW monuments. Problem there is a 50' jog to the west for 300' in the middle of the 1500'. And those monuments are there. And they are 6 monuments that fit the creation deed for the highway, the surveyor passed over the 4 for the jog. At least he called along the ROW so the description will override the metes call. That happened twice along the ROW. They are newish descriptions not even 10 years old. 

DOT misplaced two jogs extending them about 130' north of where the creation deed puts them, and the new descriptions got written to the bad monuments. Along the west side of the highway the new description leaves a 75' x130' parcel in the grantors ownership (an illegal tract) and on the east side they described a 25 x 130 parcel of fee highway land and granted that. 

And there's more. An endless series of Fups.

@mightymoe Better you than me. Sounds like a real onion of a cluster duck. Peel away all the FUBAR layers while the tears start to well up only to reveal more layers of FUBAR.

Around here its a mixed bag. Each project is different, some you can tell were not set by surveyors.  It's all the DOTs fault.  Budget with the understanding that it might take 4 times as long as a normal survey.  Combine the monument issues with the lack of clear and accurate right of way plans, deeds written based on the 2nd version(there are 6 versions) of the right of way plans.  Add the individual lot surveyor that finds two mons that fit whatever plan they are looking at (the wrong one BTW) and you have one CF.  I do love uncovering all the layers of FUBAR though.

Last major highway project over 200 miles set 60D nails instead of any kind of "real" monuments.  Dumb is as dumb does.

ROW monuments here in Kentucky are historically bad and mostly not held which drives me crazy.  It goes against everything surveyors hold dear in that original monuments hold above all else.  The last 15 years have been better but everything prior is awful. 

I'm wondering why you are rejecting these monuments. Are they not original? Is there an exception in your state statutes, or a court precedent to the presumption that original monuments hold over dimension?

@peter-lothian 

I do all I can to accept ROW monuments. This highway was formed through a number of different takings, from originally a county road, to newish shifts in the 1980's to subdivision plats to a really new reconstruction 6 years ago. Most of the gross errors are in the 1980s taking. There was a grant, and then the plan set and construction, finally monuments were set.

I kinda consider them original, technically they aren't and would accept them if they were set with some care. But, 130' down station from the plans and the deeds, 15' into the right of way, when the ROW is already on state land, a spiral curve spiral that doesn't have a monument within 5' except one which is right on. There is even a set that is in the ROW of a railroad by 10' which they weren't meant to be in. 

@peter-lothian I hope before I die some private owner will have the resources to try one of these in court. The outcome would be interesting if argued correctly. Would the description control or the established (used) ROW? Would the description control when at variance with the as built plan? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind. Here's what I do know. Highway projects are expensive with time constraints and choices made by those in charge always choose the path of least resistance. Where the roadway and ditches are located are obvious and almost everyone lives with it no questions asked. The decision makers at the highway authority are willing to deal with ROW conflicts as they arise rather than spend money and time up front to avoid it. That's the bottom line. I worked for them for decades and never got very far in promoting it up front although it sounds like we may have done better with it than other states. And btw, I have no problem setting temporary 60 d spks for ROW if the permanent marks have no meaning. Might be better off.

Does a contractor who is hired to do the paving or grading or building of a road and sets the right of way monuments deserve the status of someone who sets original monuments that should be honored? He has no ownership in the property. He certainly does not have the education or the knowledge necessary to determine the boundaries of property. Why should "original monument" status be given to monuments that were set by someone who had no expertise other than working on a highway crew. 

@lurker Which brings up the question as to how were they actually set? I know from other posts that in some states the situation you described is the norm. Is it so in MightyMoe's area of practice? I don't know.

@lurker 

It's been different here, DOT has their own crews under an LS. The monuments get set in conjunction with the contractor, the DOT crews would strap off the location, contractor would drill a hole, DOT would come back set and tamp in the monument, then they would punch them. It works really well.....usually. The last few years I did a 7 mile project with the same vintage, rejecting one monument. That one was moving in my opinion. I just sent off a six mile project from the 1980s where I "rejected" 4 monuments that were set for the pavement and not the ROW, the ROW monuments were there also, it was weird. The ROW was a simple curve and the PC and PT were there in good shape and location, the pavement was a spiral curve spiral and monuments were there for the TS and ST. Showed them but didn't accept them. 

Good point @lurker.  Again, we can usually tell how/who set the mons on any particular project.  Many in our area were set by contractors and it shows.  My thought is that if the mons are obviously not where they were intended and match no records at all and haven't been used by anyone for anything such as fences or building setbacks then our DOT is fine with removing them and having us set them in the 'correct position'.   We document this on our recorded survey and move on.  This is usually the case as my area of work is generally very unpopulated with few improvements.  

Maybe I shouldn't say we didn't get very far based on what I'm reading here. We did get ROW staking removed from the construction manual. In other words it's not a construction contractor's job. It is supposed to be done under direct supervision of a licensed land surveyor outside the contract or if included in the contract by a licensed surveyor. At least the intent is good.

ROW monuments should always be set by the surveyor that determined the right of way and not the construction surveyor that has no knowledge of all as to how the boundary was determined.

Agreed.

The problem here is as mentioned above.  The original plans were surveyed by Surveyor A or a DOT employee, modifications made during construction were (maybe) shown on the final plans by a DOT employee and the phlysical setting of ROW monuments was done by a construction company employee who may or may not have any knowledge of the original/modified information beyond the bare bones left on whatever set of plans were handed to him.  The time between the first survey and the setting of the monuments could be five to ten or more years, depending on how funding was provided.  We have had large areas impacted for which the section corners have not yet been recorded ten years after the project appears to be done.

Oregon's DOT has detailed instructions on writing legal descriptions for right of way and easement acquisition in its Right of Way Engineering Manual. they have been quite consistent for at least 50 years.  In almost every case these will be strip descriptions in which a stationed centerline is described with offsets. Usually the only monument mentioned is a call to a nearby PLSS corner (which isn't necessarily monumented at the time of writing). The basis of bearings - usually state plane - is stated. Monuments are generally placed on the right of way lines and maps recorded, but neither map nor monuments are called for in the deeds. All this leaves the following surveyor leeway on whether to accept found monuments or not. 

Posted by: @wa-id-surveyor

↑

ROW monuments should always be set by the surveyor that determined the right of way and not the construction surveyor that has no knowledge of all as to how the boundary was determined.

This is exactly the argument that I'm making with the Public Works department for which I am now working and they are simply clueless to this with their Capital Road Projects. As is, the design phase is done by one or another LS and plans developed off their work and subsequently the low bid construction contractor's survey sub is responsible for setting or resetting monuments. I'm trying to make them see the light that this is not how any of this should work. It's an uphill slog but I'm making slow progress. The reality is if you want to change anything you have to do it from the inside and take the time to educate people.