C Billingsley, post: 343713, member: 1965 wrote: This issue doesn't affect me either, but it's interesting. I normally describe the markers I set as "Set 1/2" Rebar and Cap". If I'm reading the thread correctly, this would be an offense in Texas. Sounds pretty harsh.
Yes, the rules require a surveyor to set identifiable markers, and to describe those markers. A mention of a "cap" is not identifiable per so, so you would not be in compliance with rule 663.17(b) which requires that markers be described.
In your example, I'm assuming that elsewhere on your map or in your metes and bounds description you have not defined the phrase "1/2 in. Rebar and Cap" to mean a 1/2 in. Rebar with a specific type of cap stamped or imprinted with certain numbers and letters.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 343734, member: 9981 wrote: IN Oregon it is only necessary to have some distinguishing word on the cap, such as company name. But this is a recording state and the idea is that the source of any found monument can be found in public record from the map.
In Oklahoma the company CA number is required on the cap. In a state without recording it would be best to include some information on it that would lead the public to the source. Seems like OK is a step ahead of TX in this regard.
The primary object of the rule is to make it possible for future surveyors to identify original corners of boundaries being created today. I don't think that a company name alone does that if they are using the same style of rod and cap for years and may return to a property to replace original markers with markers of the identical style.
The secondary object of the rule is to connect a monument with the survey that placed it so that the evidence from which the corner was reestablished is available in the future. If the survey generated a metes and bounds description that was used in a conveyance, mission accomplished since that metes and bounds description is required to set forth that basis in evidence from which the corner was determiend. However, just a generic cap doesn't get you there without a stamping that is truly unique to each marker.
Naturally, another purpose of identifiable monuments is disciplinary, but that is not the main purpose of the rule.
Kent McMillan, post: 343732, member: 3 wrote: Well, professionals know the reason for rules and do not apply the rules in a way that defeats their purpose.
What in effect Shawn is arguing is that although registrants are required to describe monuments set and found, he doesn't think that means that if a monument bears a cap or some other professional identification that is a necessary part of the description of such monuments. I don't see that as passing the laugh test.
I don't see that passing your laugh test is relevant. That's part of the problem actually. Because you or I believe something to be good practice doesn't mean it's enforceable by law. I do a lot of things that I believe are good practice that aren't compulsory by law. It would be unjust for me to expect the licensing board to penalize people for not adhering to my personal standards unless those standards are actually codified. In which case, those standards are no longer my personal standards, but become professional standards.
What I'm arguing is that I find no statute that compels a surveyor to describe an identification mark, and thus far you've yet to provide such a statute.
Isn't it a principle of law that a criminal case gets dismissed if the facts alleged do not constitute the a violation of the law cited? You can't infer that I was speeding from seeing me pass someone and clip the yellow line, on the assumption that they were going the speed limit. Maye improper passing, but not speeding. Just the facts, ma'am. Get the charge correct.
Inferring that caps were not placed just because the were not described, without actual evidence of a lack of caps, would be abuse of power. Maybe boards do that. Deciding monument were not described to some uncodified standard is also. At most it is a minor lapse of good practice that doesn't warrant a huge fine.
(I'm full of opinions. When do I get elected emperor?)
The rule makes no mention of making the monument identifiable from the plat or description. That's certainly a resourceful use of an ID cap, but it's not the intent as stated in the rule. The rule states that its purpose is to make the surveyor identifiable:
"...shall be marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer."
How much effort could it actually take to correctly note the monument you set? Not much, I would think. The problem, probably, is that the drafter is not familiar with either the rules or what was set, and the surveyor signed without actually taking a glance at the sheet. In that case I have no sympathy. My standard note:
SET A 1.5" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED RLS 12122 ON A 1/2" IRON REBAR 18" LONG WITH AN ATTACHED 3/4" BRASS TAG STAMPED RLS 12122.
Bruce, I have always had great respect for you and still do. Having said that, your sympathies and your personal standards are irrelevant. I know that you have high standards, which I appreciate. This is a question of the application of statute and punitive action taken based on statute. Can you identify a statute in this thread that was violated that would result in a $1500 fine?
It appears that the Board cites the wrong Rule when disciplining the licensees. They call the inadequate description a violation of 663.17(d) but it appears to actually be a violation of 663.19(e).
Dave, which part of 663.19e would you say that they violated?
Shawn Billings, post: 343742, member: 6521 wrote: What I'm arguing is that I find no statute that compels a surveyor to describe an identification mark, and thus far you've yet to provide such a statute.
So, your view is that the rules of the TBPLS that require surveyors to describe markers found and set do not require the registrant to actually describe them? Did I get that right?
Or is your view that it isn't necessary to describe an monument that has professional identification on it by actually describing that professional identification?
Dave Karoly, post: 343754, member: 94 wrote: It appears that the Board cites the wrong Rule when disciplining the licensees. They call the inadequate description a violation of 663.17(d) but it appears to actually be a violation of 663.19(e).
Actually, it seems clear to me that the board action cites the lack of description of a cap as evidence that no cap was set and obviously the registrants did not contest that fact since they agreed to the disciplinary action.
The map that merely noted "iron rod set" was prima facie evidence of a violation of the monumentation rule and the registrants provided no rebuttal, it would appear.
I was actually at this board meeting and the minutes are a fraction of the words spoken at a board meeting. I've also noticed several typographical errors in the minutes. I think I would want to have the full case report in my hands before arguing the facts as if we were in front of a court at law. You are speculating and making a lot of suppositions.
For what it's worth, my plats are marked, "all monuments are a two bit rebar set with chartreuse plastic cap stamped "TA Nold RPLS 5658" unless otherwise noted". If they ain't that, then they're noted on the face of the plat. My field notes (legal description to you foreigners) read at the first set monument, "to a two bit rebar set with chartreuse plastic cap stamped "TA Nold RPLS 5658", (hereinafter called a two bit rebar set)".
FWIW, my personal stock is a 5/8 inch reinforcing bar with a 2 inch aluminum cap but I have used company provided caps so the material, size and stampings vary by the project/employer. I haven't adopted stamped monument numbers but I've thought about it.
(e) Boundary monuments found or placed by the land surveyor shall be described upon the survey drawing. The land surveyor shall note upon the survey drawing, which monuments were found, which monuments were placed as a result of his/her survey, and other monuments of record dignity relied upon to establish the corners of the property surveyed.
I think a Board can interpret that to mean the monument has to be completely and accurately described. I don't think it is sufficient to say the law requires a cap so it must exist; it still has to be described.
I see what you are saying there.
Then it would be a violation of 663.17(d).
The document constitutes an admission that 663.17(d) was not complied with. If the Surveyor proves the monuments were marked as required then the description is insufficient per 663.19(e).
Stating "Set 3/4" rebar tagged LS1111" has been standard practice in California since at least the end of WWII and common before that it just doesn't occur to me someone would do otherwise. Likewise with "Found 1" iron pipe, tagged LS1111."
Kent McMillan, post: 343732, member: 3 wrote: Well, professionals know the reason for rules and do not apply the rules in a way that defeats their purpose.
What in effect Shawn is arguing is that although registrants are required to describe monuments set and found, he doesn't think that means that if a monument bears a cap or some other professional identification that is a necessary part of the description of such monuments. I don't see that as passing the laugh test.
No. That's not what he said at all.
It is well founded in case law that the surveyor is supposed to be viewed as doing what he said he did. Proof to the contrary is needed. So, in that vein and following that logic, if TBPLS requires some identification of the registrant who sets a corner, and they purport to set a corner, then logic follows, that if they are following the rules, that they did indeed mark it in some identifiable way, whether stated or not. That would be the causality you were looking for.
This is an excellent time for [USER=3]@Kent McMillan[/USER] to actually put his money where is mouth is and go and apply for the chief surveyor position at the GLO, whereby he could actually sit on the board and write rules that disregard all of this ambiguity, since there is now a vacancy there. Surely a man with his presence and stature in the Austin area could garner this gig and do some good instead of pontificating about it.
I believe that Mark Neugebauer has already filled Bill O'Hara's position as Chief Surveyor. The recent opening of Surveyor II requires an LSLS license, so Kent would only be eligible for the Surveyor I position which I am sure would be a substantial pay cut.
My Colleagues-
Yes, it is nice to know who is allegedly responsible for marking a point relative to a boundary.
Here is Ontario's go at survey monumentation:
http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/910525
I indicate on our plans that we have found something, but do not relate a person to it because of the fact that persons and backhoes pluck out all sorts of monumentation and some are so kind to put the monumentation back from whence it came in their minds.
This IMVHO the opportunity to infer that a surveyor put this bar in by reference to her/him on the plan is good when reading the stamped number on the side of the bar (mine is 1288).
But, with the above scenario of the 'bar pluckers' and returning 'em with the obvious possibility to not be in their original position, is it not potentially slandering her or him by inferring that it is in the exact position the surveyor set the monument ?
I have found my numbered bar in places I've never been and similarly other surveyor's bars where they have not been.
Mind you our monumentation Regulations appear to possibly be ultra vires by not being under the correct Act !
Cheers,
Derek
So what you're saying is that Kent isn't qualified enough to occupy that position. That's gold! 🙂
