celestialpawn11, post: 336393, member: 10351 wrote: So what state are you from Tommy, where you are fortunate enough not to be looked over and examined by a "desk jockey"
Tennessee.
But, I have done extensive work in Mississippi, Alabama and Kentucky, and I've never had any government official "review" my survey in those states, excluding my client.
celestialpawn11, post: 336382, member: 10351 wrote: Guys, I am still working on writing a magazine article for POB mag and have gotten some input from about a dozen guys on this website in the past on this subject. Still hoping for some more people to chime in with your comments. This is because I value your comments and need more of them.
Does anyone work in a state where certain surveys have to be filed, submitted for review, etc. ? The websites of all 50 states give me the codes and rules,etc., but I need to hear from actual land surveyors.
Do you have to turn in a survey map or plat to a city or county surveyor department for review ? To a planning department? To a surveyor contractor hired by a city or county ?
The most important part of my article is how do you feel in general about the comments that come back to you ? Are they reasonable ?
Do they catch minor errors that may have gotten past you ? What about procedure ? Are there times when the "reviewer" may raise questions about your procedure or suggest other approaches ? Do you find having a second or third licensed person look at what you did helps to improve your survey ? Or is this another example of "over-reaching" by the powers that be.What do you think ??
In Oregon the County Surveyor (or City Surveyor in some instances) is mandated by statute to:
SUBS and PARTITIONS
ORS 92.100 Approval of plat by city or county surveyor; procedures; approval by county assessor and county governing body; fees.
(2) Before approving the subdivision plat as required by this section, the county surveyor shall check the subdivision site and the subdivision plat and shall take measurements and make computations and other determinations necessary to determine that the subdivision plat complies with the survey-related provisions of ORS 92.010 to 92.192 and 209.250 and with survey-related requirements established pursuant to an ordinance or resolution passed by the governing body of the controlling city or county.
(3) Before approving the partition plat as required by this section, the county surveyor shall check the partition plat and make computations and other determinations that the partition plat complies with the survey-related provisions of ORS 92.010 to 92.192 and 209.250 and with the survey-related requirements established pursuant to an ordinance or resolution by the governing body of the controlling city or county.
CONDOS
ORS100.115 (5) Before a plat or a supplemental plat may be recorded, it must be approved by the city or county surveyor as provided in ORS 92.100. Before approving the plat as required by this section, the city or county surveyor shall:
(a) Check the boundaries of the plat and units and take measurements and make computations necessary to determine that the plat complies with this section.
(b) Determine that the name complies with ORS 100.105 (5) and (6).
(c) Determine that the following are consistent:
(A) The designation and area in square feet of each unit shown on the plat and the unit designations and areas contained in the declaration in accordance with ORS 100.105 (1)(d);
(B) Limited common elements identified on the plat and the information contained in the declaration in accordance with ORS 100.105 (1)(h);
(C) The description of the property in the surveyorÛªs certificate included on the plat and the description contained in the declaration in accordance with ORS 100.105 (1)(a); and
(D) For a flexible condominium, the variable property depicted on the plat and the identification of the property contained in the declaration in accordance with ORS 100.105 (7)(c).
(6) The person offering the plat or supplemental plat for approval shall:
(a) Submit a copy of the proposed declaration and bylaws or applicable supplemental declaration at the time the plat is submitted; and
(b) Submit the original or a copy of the executed declaration and bylaws or the applicable supplemental declaration approved by the commissioner if required by law prior to approval.
(7) For performing the services described in subsection (5)(a) to (c) of this section, the city surveyor or county surveyor shall collect from the person offering the plat for approval a fee of $150 plus $25 per building. The governing body of a city or county may establish a higher fee by resolution or order. [Formerly 94.042; 1991 c.763 å¤28; 1997 c.489 å¤8; 1997 c.816 å¤5; 1999 c.677 å¤42; 1999 c.710 å¤7; 2001 c.104 å¤30; 2001 c.173 å¤3; 2001 c.756 å¤28; 2003 c.569 å¤24; 2005 c.22 å¤75; 2007 c.410 å¤17; 2009 c.641 å¤41]
There are other statutes too!
As being one of the beuricrats that has to check these surveys, I wish the laws were clearer of what a standard survey shows and places on the map or I wish they just took my singnature block off of the maps. Because I can not, being liscenced, "hold paramount the Safety Health and Welfare of the Public" as my Profesional Dutie without saying something about the crap I see in carrying out this mandate.
My 2 cents, Jp
"As being one of the beuricrats that has to check these surveys, I wish the laws were clearer of what a standard survey shows and places on the map or I wish they just took my singnature block off of the maps. Because I can not, being liscenced, "hold paramount the Safety Health and Welfare of the Public" as my Profesional Dutie without saying something about the crap I see in carrying out this mandate.
My 2 cents, Jp"
That is hilarious awn sew mini levels. Speling poelease taken a brake.
FrozenNorth, post: 336384, member: 10219 wrote: Alaska: Record of Survey statute (as it should be). No survey review (also as it should be).
No other profession--medicine, law, veterinary medicine, engineering, etc.-- is demeaned by having a glorified clerk check its every decision as is the case in some "review states."
Ohio is not a recording state. However, when a new tract is created or an altered/corrected description of an existing tract is recorded the minimum transfer standards laws (Ohio Revised Code 315.251 Minimum standards for boundary surveys) and rules (Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 4733-37 Standards for Boundary Surveys) require review and set minimum standards. Counties are required to set and publish minimum transfer standards and the Ohio Department of Transportation maintains a "County Conveyances" web page indexing the individual standards. The Ohio Board of Registration in Opinion 2012-05-24 has determined this review is to be conducted by a Professional Surveyor.
billvhill, post: 336404, member: 8398 wrote: I had a clerk tell me she wasn't going to accept my plat because I used grey lines, which didn't come out when scanned.
The County Clerk wanted to be able to reproduce the document you wanted to place in the public record? What was she thinking?!
If it won't show up in a photo copy (modern photo copiers use a scanner), it might as well be disappearing ink.
It is optional in Georgia. We have a pretty good law and attornery general opinion that takes away the bueracracy. http://law.ga.gov/opinion/2005-5-0
As previously mentioned, in the other Washington, boundary surveys are given a cursory review by the recorder to ensure that the image is suitable and meets statute for their purpose. There is no technical review of the data and the process takes less than a minute per sheet if your map is organized. The checklist is available to all and there should be no complaints about it not qualifying. Since I record all my work, there have been times when I've tried to record a map in the wrong county, forgot a north arrow or signature, or some other debacle and found myself thankful that these blunders were caught.
Subdivisions and boundary line adjustments are usually reviewed by the county or city department that administers them. Some of the cities that I work with sub-out this work to a consultant but in every case there is a checklist of things that they are looking for mostly to ensure that the City is complying with the approval decision, technical and language standards. I expect a correction on everything I submit and hence so do my clients; whether that is okay or not is debatable but I have grown to accept it and take the opportunity to meet or correspond with my peers. I suggest that it is a mentoring opportunity that can go both ways. Of course there can be negatives, like the length of time the process plays out, but there are also positives that can be achieved. A healthy percentage of my workload comes from the municipalities that I work in where the client referral was by the department that reviews the product. I know this is not how it is supposed to work but nevertheless it is appreciated.
Holy Cow, post: 336469, member: 50 wrote: "As being one of the beuricrats that has to check these surveys, I wish the laws were clearer of what a standard survey shows and places on the map or I wish they just took my singnature block off of the maps. Because I can not, being liscenced, "hold paramount the Safety Health and Welfare of the Public" as my Profesional Dutie without saying something about the crap I see in carrying out this mandate.
My 2 cents, Jp"That is hilarious awn sew mini levels. Speling poelease taken a brake.
I am glad to hear from Holy Cow & JP, "govt." employees, likely at county level. I once worked for a city when they had a survey dept. many yrs. ago and recall there was not much quantity but a whole lot of quality with what we did. Sounds like Holy Cow and JP are seeing some products from the private sector from those who are all about quantity and not always quality.
When a plan/plat review person sees procedure that he thinks is very questionable, comments on alternative methods,etc., is it just that, a comment ? or is there a statute that requires the survey to comply with the view of the map checker ? For example, in CA, as Jim Frame has pointed out in the past, the county surveyor must register the survey regardless of how he/she feels about the procedure or outcome of the survey, but at his option, may place a statement expressing his opinion on the map as to why he disagrees. The surveyor then is allowed to counter with his written opinion in response.
I don't see such a mechanism in in Oregon statute 209.250
Here in NC we have review of subdivision plats by both local planning officials and Review Officers at the county. It's a mess. I have had review officers refuse to file a plat because the border was 5/8" instead of the required 1/2". each county gets to pick what size plats they will accept, some only accept 18 x 24, others accept 3 different sizes. But by far the biggest problem lies with local officials review. They can take weeks to review a simple plat and months for other reviews. Getting a plat filed often involves getting reviews from the fire department, engineering, planning, gis, dot, CAMA, utility companies and who knows what other agencies. I've had plats held hostage for signatures because road signs are not set yet, or because a hydrant wasn't inspected. Basically, you are at the whim of every official in whatever area you are working on.
To be clear, most of what I see is excellent work. Styles vary, but that's OK. I am mainly looking for outright errors that most likely happened during the drafting of the plat, not in the field.
I am not a county employee in any county. I provide contractual services currently in two counties and have provided review services for some kind of payment in four other counties, as needed, for the past decade or more.
Please do not put me in the same category as the "revenooer's" that destroyed stills in the hills back in the day.
In Illinois there is no formal review process for a survey that I know of. There might be some review though depending on where the plat goes, such as the state DOT or a city that reviews subdivision plats. I've also had the county assesor's office call me when they had trouble putting something in their GIS system. I don't usually get upset with these calls and a couple times they caught some kind of minor problem with my surveys.
Holy Cow, post: 336469, member: 50 wrote: "As being one of the beuricrats that has to check these surveys, I wish the laws were clearer of what a standard survey shows and places on the map or I wish they just took my singnature block off of the maps. Because I can not, being liscenced, "hold paramount the Safety Health and Welfare of the Public" as my Profesional Dutie without saying something about the crap I see in carrying out this mandate.
My 2 cents, Jp"That is hilarious awn sew mini levels. Speling poelease taken a brake.
Sorry, I got typing in shorthand mode and forgot to go back and spellcheck. My bad!:-(
celestialpawn11, post: 336510, member: 10351 wrote: I am glad to hear from Holy Cow & JP, "govt." employees, likely at county level. I once worked for a city when they had a survey dept. many yrs. ago and recall there was not much quantity but a whole lot of quality with what we did. Sounds like Holy Cow and JP are seeing some products from the private sector from those who are all about quantity and not always quality.
When a plan/plat review person sees procedure that he thinks is very questionable, comments on alternative methods,etc., is it just that, a comment ? or is there a statute that requires the survey to comply with the view of the map checker ? For example, in CA, as Jim Frame has pointed out in the past, the county surveyor must register the survey regardless of how he/she feels about the procedure or outcome of the survey, but at his option, may place a statement expressing his opinion on the map as to why he disagrees. The surveyor then is allowed to counter with his written opinion in response.
I don't see such a mechanism in in Oregon statute 209.250
No there is no mechanism. To top it off our State Board is very slow to respond to inquiries and complaints. I never took this job to be the local revenuer, just can't let some of the crap continue and say I'm doing my job! Sorry for the poor spelling in the original post. Forgot to spell check it. Jp
I have worked in CA, OR, and currently in WA. I hated the process in CA, as I was young in my career and stupid, and didnt realize that I could use those reviewers to learn from and make my product better. In Oregon, I learned my lesson, and worked with the reviewers, instead of against them. It still sucked on occaision, but not often, and it was so worth it in the end. Now that i work in a WA county that doesnt do ANY survey review, I desperately want the review process back. If for no other reason than to make sure that I have as many of the records as possible, since no one know where ALL the records are. At least with a review, I get another PLSs thoughts on research.
Sent from my LG-D321 using Tapatalk
WA and ID each require plats to be reviewed. Plats in WA and ID involve creating new parcels of land (apparently in other states this is not the case). As such, each city and county have different mapping requirements and have a review process before being finalized. In my area all review comments I currently receive have been worthwhile. In the past I have worked in other areas where the review comments are nitpicky and over the top.
No county I work in either WA or ID have a review process for a record of survey, which is a map that looks like a plat but is basically done to 'record' your survey and make the public and other PLS aware of the the pins you set and 'hopefully' some insight as to how you set them where you set them.
That being said, i really do wish there was a review process for the records of survey. Why is that? I am on both sides of the fence as I review plats for several agencies and some of the crap i see coming through in plat work is atrocious (misclosures galore, illegible, etc....) and I can only imagine thats what comes across in their records of survey too....minus the review part
