Temporary Line Markers

[bubblewatcher]

SECTION 464 –BOARD RULES
(e) When conducting a survey which is a retracement of lines shown on a subdivision map, official map, or a record of survey, where no material discrepancies with these records are found and where sufficient monumentation isfound to establish the precise location of property corners thereon, a corner record MAY be filed in lieu of a record of survey for any property corners which are set or reset or found to be of a different character than indicated by prior records. Such corner records may show one or more property corners, property controlling corners, reference monuments or accessories to property corners on a single corner record document so long as it is legible, clear, and understandable.


I now see the problem

[Ric7308]

So, what's the problem?

(afraid I MAY be sorry I asked this, but I tend to seek out punishment...)

[bruce hall]

was setting temporary corners. The law doesn't address temporary corners or even temporary offsets to temporary corners with regards to the filing of a CR or a RS.

Granted, the surveyor probably had the corner and pl in the correct location, but because of the changes that had occured that are not reflected on the record, I think that he is supposed to file something.

Like I stated earlier, I'm staking the pl and the landowner can build his fence wherever he wants.

[bubblewatcher]

problem:

Survey retracement - discrepencies + sufficient monuments = Maybe CR

(regardless of temp or perm sets?)

[bubblewatcher]

Question: What is sufficient monumentation?

Lot corners?
C/L Intersection Mons?
Found recorded Subdivision tags in middle of the block 8 lots down?

[RAM]

Back on my soap box.

Why is there such a reluctance to file a CR or R/S?

It is not that big of deal to file a CR. Then there is no question if you should or not. Don't know how you can set construction stakes to build anything relative to a property line and say you didn't establish the property line. If there is ANY doubt, FILE SOMETHING. Protect yourself.

[bubblewatcher]

I've tried to argue both sides. For and against doing a CR. I've already hijacked this thread that started by discussing temporary points. (my apologies)
If you set temporary points and they build the fence in the wrong location, knocking out you temporary corners, and come back and try to sue you because they say that's where you told them to build it, what do you have to fall back on?

[bubblewatcher]

answer: set a permanent point file a CR

its not the law but its right

[E_Page]

The law doesn't address a lot of things. That doesn't make the thing addressed not illegal.

But, are temporary corners addressed indirectly?



Alright, I lobbed the grenades, now I guess it's time to present my opinion on the subject.

In KWilson's opening post, the problem appears to be that another surveyor was offering to set something of a temporary nature with the intent of avoiding filing the proper map, be it an RS or a CR. If that is the case, it's wrong both ethically and legally.

If a prospective client asks for a proposal to "stake my property line", I begin by asking my standard questions. Unless the client says something to the effect that the points will last only long enough to place a fence, wall, whatever, the thought of setting anything other than a permanent marker doesn't cross my mind and doesn't get discussed.

I can envision the very simple scenario that I described, but can't remember the last time I've run across it. Unless one does a lot of such work in recently laid out subdivisions, I would think that such a case would be quite rare. And unless I've just completed a survey of a neighboring lot, I have no way of knowing for certain what conditions I will run into in the course of the survey. I do not know if everything will be found, with no surprises and no document of any kind required, or if I will find one or more §8762 triggers.

My proposal and my contract will reflect that. My proposals for "simple" lot surveys usually have three estimates: 1) Everything found in agreement with record, no map, $xxx; 2) Everything that is found agrees with record, one or more points being replaced (no mention of "temp" points), CR filed $xxxx; 3) one or more §8762 triggers encountered, monuments set or not, $yyyy.

If the client were to state that the points would be wiped out by construction activities shortly after being set, that only changes my estimate in that I might suggest adding stakes for the fence for that purpose. But I still don't know the presence or absence of RS triggers, so my estimate does not decrease, and I don't take the RS or CR out.

In my own practice, I tend to err on the side of caution, so even if the lot dimensions fit record perfectly, and the client wanted only wood stakes which would soon be replaced by a fence, I would probably plan to come back and spend a few minutes locating the fence, then file a CR.

However, under such circumstances as I laid out, I don't see in the law that the surveyor is required to do so. A surveyor is under no obligation to file anything when upon determining a boundary, he finds it to match record, and I disagree that finding that a monument is missing triggers any such requirement.

If that surveyor sets construction stakes which happen to be on the PL or reference it, with the knowledge that those stakes will be gone within a few days, I would have a very difficult time stating that he was required by law to file either a CR or a RS.

I would also have a hard time asserting that the surveyor was unethical and that he cut corners to skirt the law by not filing anything. IMO, if you are going to hold that legalistic and literal reading of the law, then you should be filing CRs for all of your hubs and nails set on your construction projects. After all, those points are also somehow related to the PL.

But KWilson stated that the other surveyor had said up front that they would just set temporary corners and leave it at that. As I stated previously, unless one had just completed a survey on a neighboring lot, how would one know going in that the project would not require either a CR or a RS?

I tossed out the scenario that I did to get the discussion going on identifying where the contrary might be shown. I am not disappointed to see good arguments on each side.

I read Dave's well written article and agree with much of it, but must disagree on this point: As professionals, we are expected to understand the laws which govern our practice. In order to understand those laws properly, we MUST be able to interpret them. Very few laws are as black and white as "Thou shall not kill". As some of us know, even that one was interpreted differently by some than by others.

But I do agree that if not interpreted in its complete context, the interpreter can come, either mistakenly or on purpose, to an incorrect conclusion. It is through out of context interpretation that many operate under the dangerous belief that as long as nothing permanent is set, that no map is required. I also believe that many who have passed the PLS exam are not qualified to practice unsupervised. But that springs off into a different set of topics, so I'll leave it there.

And it also brings us back to KWilson's OP, that another surveyor appears to be working under the belief that if nothing permanent is set for a boundary survey, any boundary survey, then the time and cost associated with an RS can be avoided.



I'll continue later. I need to get some work done today.

[RAM]

Boy I enjoy reading Evan's stuff.

Over all this has been a great discussion

Thank you all

[bruce hall]

that you are refering to in the "Old Testament" is "Thou shall not murder." Huge difference. The original version refers to the unlawful taking of a life while the revised version refers to the lawful taking of a life. A person can kill another person, and given the circumstances, it is not murder and it is okay.

Evan stated just above that:
"and I disagree that finding that a monument is missing triggers any such requirement." If you like what you got just keep doing what your doing.

Anyway, I found all the monuments at the corners of the block and everything fit measured and record within survey limits or reason, but no interior corners had monuments on them. I guess there is no physical change.



I can overly extrapolate on this idea. Here goes. Over the years I survey several of the lots of this block and was gonna set pipes at the corners, but each one of the landowners was gonna take out the pipe that I set, and I knew it. So I just set a temporary hub at the corner, he and the neighbor builds a fence.

I don't file a CR cause I ain't setting anything durable and it's gonna get knocked out anyway. A missing pipe don't mean nothing except that it is missing or is that lost? And the landowner doesn't want to pay me to come back and monument the corner after construction, cause it's gonna cost more money. In fact I don't file a record on the whole block, cause the block is the same as it used to be, except for the interior monuments.

I stake about 8 of these lots in this 20 lot block over the past 4 years and someone forgot to tie out the block corners when the road was improved. Whose fault is that, I wonder? Doesn't matter cause there ain't no monuments in this block anymore, at the edges of it or inside. No physical change here as well. No one has been in this block, according to the records since it was first subdivided.

I think that this is a perfect way to do things. Seems legal to me. A missing monument is not physical change, in fact the block monuments that are missing are not physical change. So I can go back in there next year and survey Lot 1 at the corner of the block from the field notes that I have genererated, set something temporary at the corners where walls are gonna be built.

And i ain't gonna file anything cause it was "facile"(6 bit word for easy) to set the block corners from across the street or maybe even two blocks away. What's facile for me may be not be easy for you.

I doubt that it would go that far, and I'm probably way out on a limb anyway. Except, as far as this particular posts goes, the first three sentences.

PS. and if temporary corners are addressed indirectly I guess that would under the establishment of fixed works. It can be also found somewhere else in the PLSA in the white part of the pages.

[goodgps]

Dang Greg !!!
Now I cant get that "Cher" song out of my head . . . .Thanks a lot !

gypsies . . . tramps . . .and thieves . . .

[bruce hall]

Ram, cause he does articulate his ideas very well.

[E_Page]

Bruce,

Under what conditions would you file a CR rather than an RS. From what I'm reading of your posts (a missing monument constitutes "physical change" - §8762(b)(1)), then by your estimation, simply replacing a missing monument, or finding one missing, whether you replace it or not, triggers an RS.

I must not be understanding you. Please clarify.

[bruce hall]

PLSA where a surveyor can replace a missing monument in his survey by filing a Corner Record vs. a RS.

Records of Survey not Required
Section 8765 (d) states "When THE survey is a retracement.........provided that a corner record is filed for any property corners which are set or reset or found to be of a different character than indicated by prior records........."
Of course everything has to fit real well together and there isn't any other weird stuff with THE survey. This section infers, I guess, that if I am setting something or resetting something, that the something that used be there, isn't anymore. (I am covered regarding the physical change aspect of 8762)

Now let's say my survey is a survey of west line of Lot 4 of a certain tract in the description on the top of page 1 of the CR. My survey work will encompass more than just Lot 4. I'll be looking down the front lines at Lots 1 thru 4 on one side and Lots 5 through 10 on the other. Here in the OC the rear lines of the lots are tough to run because the block walls have taken most if not all of the rear pipes, and anything that I find near a block wall could be suspect as to it's original location. And I always survey around the perimeter of the Block using the centerlines as my control. And I might do other things also, but I won't get into that.

Now, I can't find the rear pipes to Lots 3, 4 or 5. I find the front pipe on the west line of Lot 4, but there ain't one on the east line, and I can't find the pipes in the front at half the other lots either. I am not required, at least in my brain, to file a RS because I can't find those other pipes because "THE survey" (see above in section 8765(D) is of the west line of Lot 4, not all the lots in this block.

So just because I find a monument that is missing, in and of itself, does not require a RS. Only if monuments are missing in "THE SURVEY", and then conceivably I could file a CR and be covered.

Cutting to the chase,
1. simply replacing a missing monument does not trigger a RS as long as everything is kool out there and a CR is filed.

Now if I DID NOT SET anything at the rear corner of THE survey, and there used to be a pipe there of record and it's not there now (read physical change), the CR provisions don't apply, cause I didn't set anything, and I would, according to the law be required to file a RS because THE survey of the west line of Lot 4 "disclosed physical change which in whole or part.........."

So I should set something if I want to get away from the RS requirement or change the description of THE survey to "the southwest corner of Lot 4." If I was trying to get away from filing the RS I would set something in the rear cause section 8765 covers me here.

I have filed CR's in the past for lot surveys. About 5 or 10 years ago I started to file more RS's, usually because I find all kinds of other stuff out there, that are not of record or should be, or something else is weird. Now I usually file RS's for my lot surveys.

That way I don't have argue what the "precise location of a property corner" means here in the OC. I can prorate, go record, hold the pipes, not hold the pipes. I can do a lot on a RS that can't be done on a CR. And there isn't a checking fee down here either, which the OC Surveyor should be commended on. I hope they keep this up, at least until I die or I can't survey anymore.

I hope I answered your question. It seems like a whole lot of words for such a simple request. So if I didn't answer it, let me know. And I'll try to be less verbose(another 6 bit word).

[Gromatici]

I brought this up before, but let's look at this a little closer: Sec. 464(e) "When conducting a survey which is a retracement of lines shown on a subdivision map, official map, or a record of survey, where no material discrepancies with these records are found and where sufficient monumentation is found to establish the precise location of property corners thereon, a corner record may be filed in lieu of a record of survey for any property corners which are set or reset or found to be of a different character than indicated by prior records. Such corner records may show one or more property corners, property controlling corners, reference monuments or accessories to property corners on a single corner record document so long as it is legible, clear, and understandable."

In Evan's scenario, the land owner has no monuments at his corners but only at the block corners. However, there is going to be no material discrepancies or other triggers for a RS. The land owner says he only needs temp points because he is building the fence on the PL so anything we set will get destroyed.

I think that I would proposed the following: 1. Set temp points at an offset to the PL so the owner can construct his fence.
2. In compliance with the section quoted above, I would set some ties to the front and rear corner I established as part of the retracement - you do have to establish the line as part of your survey by tying out the block corners. I would explain to the client that although I'm only setting temp corners for construction of the fence, I have to set permanent ties to the "corner" I am staking out per Sec. 464(e) of the LS Board Rules.
Let's look at the following words in the law: "a corner record may be filed in lieu of a record of survey for any property corners which are set or reset or found to be of a different character than indicated by prior records." The word may is in relation to filing a Record of Survey instead of doing a Corner Record. It's giving the Surveyor an option of doing a Record of Survey even though he don't have to because none of the triggers are there.
Are you "establishing the precise location of property corners"? Yes.
If you set stakes or 60d's at the corners are they of a "different character indicated by prior records"? Yes since nothing was there in the first place, the "corner" is now of a different character.
It seems to me that it's irrelevant if they are "temporary" in nature. In our case presented the markers are "temporary" due to the future construction. Notice this section of the LS Act:

8773.3. Corner record - monument rehabilitation
"In every case where a corner record is filed pursuant to Section 8773, the licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer shall reconstruct or rehabilitate the monument of such corner, and accessories to such corner, so that the same shall be left by him in such physical condition that it remains as permanent a monument as is reasonably possible and so that the same may be reasonably expected to be located with facility at all times in the future."
It would appear that we are under obligation to set the "corners" in such a manner with monuments "that it remains as permanent a monument as is reasonably possible and so that the same may be reasonably expected to be located with facility at all times in the future."
What this means to me:
Set the temporary markers, and set permanent ties (outside construction area) to the re-established corner and file a Corner Record.
Simply setting the temporary corners and walking away does not comply with the Law.

[Ric7308]

I have really enjoyed this discussion and as I have watched it unfold, numerous thoughts came to mind (while doing yard work, driving, waking up in the middle of the night, etc.), all eventually brought forth by one of my peers. Every time, I thought "hey, I need to mention this...", one of you guys had already posted it. Kind of felt like a remote round table discussion with everyone while having a drink(s).

Now if we could just find an efficient manner in which to pass this on to the land surveyors that don't frequent this forum. Makes you wonder what viewpoints we would all benefit from if more chimed in with thoughts we haven't brought up.

Evan's last post...I am glad to know that I wasn't the only one confused when Bruce mentioned the "missing monument" statement.

Bruce...thanks for detailing what you meant. I have always enjoyed reading your thoughtful comments.

Eric...in my opinion, you found a clear way in which to state where my thoughts were headed...like you were reading my mind...though I think you stated it clearer than what was swirling around in my head.

Good...made me laugh out loud with the Cher reference!

A couple last comments that I have and hopefully I will finish this and post the reply before one of you do first...

All monuments are temporary. Some more durable than others, but still temporary. If not, there would not be a need for any of us to retrace the original footsteps because all of the evidence would still be there!

Like many of you, I have heard the comments before about "just setting construction stakes" and "will be destroyed by the new fence or wall" and I believe I understand where that logic is coming from...to a certain degree. But over the last several years I have tried to adapt my viewpoint and look at us as the general public perceives our actions.

I believe that:

1. If my client requested stakes along the property line to build whatever, those stakes represent where I have determined the property line is...to all common owners of that property line.

2. If my client (or the neighboring owners) destroy or disturb my stakes building whatever, the client (or neighboring owners) will always consider the newly built whatever, as physically representing where the property line is.

3. When pressed by a difference in opinion, the property owner(s) will always claim "that is where the the surveyor put his markers."

4. Whatever is built in reference to my stakes, that whatever will continue to memorialize my determination...for good or bad.

5. When contracted to determine the location of a property line, whether it is physically marked in the field or not, the contracted party represents ONLY the party that has agreed to pay me for my services. The location that I determine represents the limits to fee ownership for all property owners that share that property line.

Throughout history to the present day, we are the privileged few that mankind has looked to when the location of land ownership is unknown or in dispute. We alone hold and share that responsibility. Why cut corners (no pun intended) with that responsibility? If we don't appropriately consider the public's welfare in these actions, who will?

I sincerely appreciate all the "continuing education" that everyone here freely passes on to me.

Ric

[PLS7393]

Ric,
Glad to see you chime in with your opinion on this information-filled thread.

I agree about wishing other surveyors visiting this forum, potentially for an avenue of conituing education. (Maybe Professional Developement Hours can be acheived through the forum, after so many posts?) As you mentioned, the surveyors who do visit and participate on this forum are one step above the others (in my opinion), because we do discuss issues for and against any argument, learning from the discussions. Just like the discussions over an adult beverage at the conferences.

Ric, you also mention;
"Why cut corners (no pun intended) with that responsibility? If we don't appropriately consider the public's welfare in these actions, who will?"

To answer that, the other surveyor who will undercut your proposal, because he has no plans on satisfying the PLS Act with a CR or ROS. Maybe the other surveyor is the party chief with company equipment working on weekends?

The Board and all Professional Land Surveyors have to act accordingly and professional on every job. Those of you reading this, I feel, are the professional land surveyors.

[bubblewatcher]

This was a great discussion. So your surveying and you find a set of nice new tags set on a lot that has block corners, no material discrepancy, and no other triggers, and no CR was filed for those tags.
Is the other surveyor in violation of anything? If you think he should have, do you report them?

Im just trying one more time to see if the temporary point is any different from a durable point

[Jim Frame]

"Im just trying one more time to see if the temporary point is any different from a durable point"

There is if you make a distinction between construction stakes and boundary monuments. Some apparently don't make that distinction, but I do.

.

[goodgps]

I was once told that if i set a 5x5 stake for a building that is 5-feet off the PL in both directions, and the stake is over the record monument, I must file a corner record or record of survey on that stake.

I laughed at that old fool. he turned me in to the board. They scolded him pretty good which is better than what i wouldve done to him, had there been any reprocussions to me from them.

I believe this staking thing is all in the perspactive of "use"

Personally I think this "Absolute record of survey filing law" is against the Surveyor and the public. If the job is just for two neighbors to build a "good neighbor fence" Who is better educated to help them find their line, than a LAND SURVEYOR. But NO, they cant afford all of our Tom Foolery with mapping, county surveyors fees, recording fees , , , they just want to build a Dang-blasted fence !!!

There should be a LAW that encourages us to do these surveys for folks so people can stay out of court later . . . . Oh but how silly of me. . . the LAw was written by LAWYERS !!!!!

I'll be horned swaggled

[Gromatici]

You don't need a surveyor to build a fence or building for that matter. You do need him to keep it on your side of the property line or setback line.

If you're staking out 20's and 80's for rough grade, you could argue that they are "temp" points. However, those are being done for grading purposes and not to keep a fence or other "fixed" work inside the pl, but keep the dirt where it's supposed to go. Plus, there is someone contracted to go back and actually set the corners when the project is done.

For most of the scenarios we've discussed, the whole point to keep the fence on the pl, or just shy of it. You need a surveyor for that. A fence company can build the fence wherever the owner tells them.

[Ric7308]

Land Surveyors are not being hired to tell the client where to build the fence. They are hired to tell the client where the property line is, so the fence can be built.

[E_Page]

If you are staking a curb line for a parking lot, and the plans show that TBC is 10' from the PL, are you going to file a RS or a CR on those curb stakes?

Let's say that the PL hasn't been staked, but it's in this mythical block we've been speaking of, and there is virtually no chance that the curb will violate the 5' setback.

Since those stakes reference the curb, which references the PL, you need to file a CR on them, right? At least that's the extension of the logic that I'm reading from some.

[bruce hall]

likely file a CR or a RS on the PL that I established. I ain't filing nothing on those curb stakes.