I agree with Glenn.
"To be removed" is not an observable fact......there is no way to tell when or if the removal will take place.
Also, I'd submit that whether or not the wheels are attached may not be the only criteria......building codes may have more specific requirements, regarding water, sewer and electrical connections, etc., and actual habitation may be more important than whether or not a structure has wheels.
Negligent?
What a load of BS.
One definition of "negligence" is that it is the opposite of "diligence".
In a professional sense, it is conduct that falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from foreseeable risks of harm.
Now one could argue, how could a client be harmed when the surveyor is doing what the client wants? But given the charge of duty to protect the public, I'd say that the case described above fits the bill.
Here a boundary survey is just that, improvements are not shown unless they impact the boundary in some way. Site plans of one form or another are done but not filed in the record, boundary surveys are. Those survey records will be available as long as the records are kept up and that makes them very valuable documents that are not subject to change without other records being created. Here an engineer designs for a 20 year life of his project, think they are extending that now, since the fallacy of a 20 year life, , raze and rebuild is not working out,. Our surveys probably will leave a record of our work for many years and be refereed to by future surveyors. Changing improvement do not belong on those records, but the boundary work and resolution does.
jud
How many mobile homes, with or without wheels, do they have in NY city?
Although I never liked having to do it, I have shown "to be removed" on several mobile homes that were existing on a lot. The same company that was dropping off the double wide was hauling off the single wide or some such BS, etc, etc, ad nauseum. If that is not sufficient for the title companies or lending institutes, then so be it - let them go deal with Jed and Granny. It has been good enough thus far and it often means that the other parties will hold up the closing until it does get moved. As for not showing it - if it exists, then it gets shown.
What is the purpose of this survey?
Who is the client? (Owner, bank, etc.)
"To be removed as per client's information on DD/MM/YYYY to undersigned" is as far as you were informed.
If it isn't by that time, I would suggest that it is not your fault.
'
If there is confirmation required by any party , go back, 'looksee' and report accordingly would be my suggestion.
Cheers
Derek
I guess you need to go to your state regulations, and figure out if you have to show improvements on the type of survey you are doing, and what constitutes an improvement or permanent structure. Is it on wheels? Is it on a concrete slab? Does it have electricity and plumbing to it? do you need to show those things (plumbing, electrical lines) whether you show the mobile home or not?
Also, can you say "reported to be removed by [client]" instead of just "to be removed"?
Oh, well, I am no help....just more questions.
> "To be removed as per client's information on DD/MM/YYYY to undersigned" is as far as you were informed.
>
I agree Derek. What a surveyor is giving is a service. If the client needs to show through a plat that he intends to remove a structure then there is absolutely no harm in placing such a note on a plan. It all depends on the wishes of the client and the intended purpose of the plan within common everyday ethics and the rules of your State.
Please don't get me started on this "charge to protect the public" BS. The BOR spells out quite clearly what the duties of a surveyor are and it is they who set the rules and determine how the public is to be protected. "The abstract concept of "protecting the public" isn't something the surveyor has to agonize over every time he does a survey.
I might add that in most jurisdictions that I have worked in, town standards for plans to be submitted for review have rules calling for notes such as the one at hand prior to the granting of building permits etc.
The TBPLS does not require you to show improvements on the property unless you certify that you did so.
It sounds like you already have your mind made up, but I don't see a problem with a note stating that there are improvements not shown.
Kyle Smith
+1
Boundary survey with improvements. Seems to me that if you are showing improvements, then you need to show them all or you are implying that they are not there. Without a note, I could not see leaving it off.
That is NOT what you said earlier, you said not showing improvements was "negligence, IMHO", you did not mention anything about a note in that particular reply.
Big difference.
A lot of the stuff on these national/international boards is so specific to the local jurisdiction, it's impossible for someone 10 miles away to give a meaningful answer. When I have an issue with California stuff, I try to post it on the Calif Surveyors Assoc. board. I know I've bored the rest of you with CA stuff plenty of times, but I try.
All I can say to this subject is if you're required to state that you've shown all improvements in place on a certain date, show them. If you show the trailer with a note stating that owner intends to remove it on a certain date, that seems fine, but whatever the purpose and intended user of the plat is will dictate the answer.
I agree.
Unbelievably, this has only come up once in all my years of surveying. The client had a piece of junk trailer house that he couldn't give away that was still sitting on the property being mortgaged. It was going to leave, even if it was simply towed to a landfill. A very expensive new home had been built on another portion of the property. The lender needed a boundary survey with improvements shown as this was a new tract, cut from the original larger tract, and the new home represented 99.99 percent of the appraised value involved. The lender was the one specifically requesting that the POS trailer not be shown along with an old chicken house, an ancient woodshed and an outhouse. Only the boundary and the new house were to be shown. No problem. That POS trailer had a negative value, so it was hard to call it an "improvement".
Mr. or Ms. Cow
The regional differences in surveying practices and requirements are really interesting. In 30 years of surveying in CA, I have never been asked to provide a plat showing boundary and improvements to a lender, except in the form of an ALTA Survey and only then on commercial and multi-family developments. Out here, the lenders really don't want to know about any encroachments, easements, setback problems or anything. They just transfer the property like everything's fine.
Are these surveys that show the improvements used to assess the value of the property for tax purposes or something? Who actually uses them for what?
I encountered this situation a few years ago. In that case, the lender would not release funds without a survey and they would not issue funds if a trailer was on the lot. ON the other hand, the client needed the funds in order to remove the trailer in addition to bringing in the double wide. I refused to be party to misinforming the lender. I put a note stating all improvements not shown and removed it once the client removed the trailer.
I demand to know the purpose of any survey work I perform as a condition of performing it. This is a prime example of why. Had I prepared and delivered a plat showing all improvements except the trailer, with no note explaining it, I'm quite sure it would be considered fraud rather than negligence. One is charged with knowing the purpose of the survey whether they actually do or not.
