Excellent article in the latest American Surveyor about the fiasco on the Rhode Island coast. Turns out a civil engineer's "site plan" was to blame and not a land surveyor:
Apparently the defendants thought that a little money thrown here and there and a small conveyance would be the best fix. Hizzoner apparently disagreed:
Although not unsympathetic to Lamoureux’s plight, the court was “convinced” that it would be unjust to transfer title to a portion of the Nulman property, ruling that it was similarly innocent and that they should not be forced to give up any of itsproperty. The court stated that the Nulman Trust was similarly “put to the inconvenience of protecting its right to its property as a consequence of wanting to ensure that the public would always be able to enjoy the property in its natural state. If the court found for Lamoureux, it would have constituted a judicial taking of property for private benefit. “The duty of the courts is to protect rights, and innocent complainants cannot be required to suffer the loss of their rights because of the expense to the wrongdoer.”
"a Class III survey is defined as a "data accumulation survey" "
:-@
That means lines from some computer program somewhere. Can you say GIS, this is exactly the same issue I'm dealing with over and over.
I'm growing very tired of it and completely unsurprised that this happened.
RI Class III is a topo plan. I have not worked in RI in over a decade, but I seem to recall boundary surveys being required for zoning compliance. Doesn't Carrigan has a staff PLS? They have a survey page with stock image of ancient theodolite Carrigan survey page
This does not just hit on the GIS nail; it hits on the Engineering Firm nail. I have seen many projects where the PE discounts the product needed from the staff PLS. The PE then creates a proposal and fee without discussing the requirements with the surveyor. It causes friction in the office and a budget crunch on the project.
I have only been in that position once in over a decade when I considered returning to an Engineering Firm. I covered a friend who was on vacation. The PE President had an ALTA for me to update. I was supposed to consult on the fee; I was bypassed. The client filled out most of the Table A and the PE gave a proposal for 5400 or 4500 on a 30+ acre fully developed site that had substantial modifications since the previous survey that had few Table A requirements.
When I asked if he knew he underbid this by a substantial amount, he replied 'Yeah, I knew the moment they received the proposal and rushed down here with a check.'
Is that a different Carrigan?
This shouldn't have happened. Design is one thing, but approval and construction should have required a real survey. The town, or whoever had jurisdiction, should be held liable for approving it without a survey. The contractor and whoever staked this out should be liable, if it wasn't Carrigan himself.
> Is that a different Carrigan?
I don't think so. Craig R. Carrigan, PE, Craig Richard Carrigan.
I'm not sure that Carrigan Eng. is at fault here, either. They produced a site plan but did not claim it was a survey. The engineer's site plan doesn't show any monuments on it or even any lot line dimensions. How did the building get laid out? Did a Carrigan crew do that? Or did the contractor do it himself?
Of course GIS can't be blamed for this, the misuse of something, either GIS or in-house calculations probably is the issue.
And of course not getting a ground survey, I wonder how the contours were generated, to be on the ground that much and not tie monuments is odd.
GIS is a wonderful tool, but you need to know how and when to use it.
Sheeze. The judge doesn't get it. When things like this go wrong, EVERYBODY knows it's the surveyors fault.....
Original thread on this topic
[msg=265440]Original thread[/msg]
The question has been asked several times - who laid out the building? Still no answer.