No fries please Ric

[LS 4722]

Ric..

I just read your article about topo surveys with a paper boundary on them. I agree about the disclaimers and I also believe that you were addressing the situation to RS type parcels, which may have been a wrong assumption on my part.


Anyway, I am bidding a topo survey that will have a non monumented boundary on it. It's a matter of client budget and for what they are wanting to do, < 500 SQ addition, the additional cost to place monuments just is not worth it to them. The parcel is just a CR filing.

So, let me get to my question to you.

The boundary that I will be showing will be correct in all respects. So what do I file with the county surveyor?

[LS_8750]

Be also reminded of 2013 CBC Division 1, Chapter 1, Section 107.2.5 concerning Site Plans, "and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey."

I am of the school of thought that in most cases topo without boundary is worthless and unethical.

[LS 4722]

I am of the school of thought that in most cases topo without boundary is worthless and unethical.

Were on the same page.

The only other survey thingie that I have seen that was also a sham was a lone lath marked "Approximate Lot Corner"

[land butcher]

The $2million house on the wrong lot in Rhode Island should scare every engineer/architect into requiring a field verified boundary on every topo, but it won't. Like most they figure the odds are slim and none that it will happen to them.
I have copied the article from the Nov-Dec American Surveyor and had my son send it to a couple of CE's he knows that almost always request a topo and paper boundary.

If more cities like NB required a monumented boundary on every site plan submitted this would cease.

Another issue showing a paper boundary does is the contractor that is enlarging or building the home calls and asks for the corners to be marked. He is never happy to find out performing a field boundary survey was rejected by the arch or engr that hired the surveyor.

[subman]

I don't think Paul is saying anything about using a record (paper) boundary. I read his post as doing a retracement survey of a subdivision lot from sufficient existing monuments to locate the property corners of his clients lot and not finding any material discrepancies. The client does not want monuments set; however Paul's topographic survey is all tied to field surveyed lines. No record or paper boundary involved... Sounds like 8765(d) to me. No filing required. Just my opinion.

8765. Record of survey - exemptions
A record of survey is not required of any survey:

(d) When the survey is a retracement of lines shown on a subdivision map, official map, or a record of survey, where no material discrepancies with those records are found and sufficient monumentation of record character is found to establish the precise location of property corners thereon, 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. For purposes of this subdivision, a “material discrepancy” is limited to a material discrepancy in the position of points or lines, or in dimensions.

[dedkad]

[LS 4722]

He said the parcel is just a CR filing.

If monuments are set then one of two filings need to be done, CR or RS.

Dennis (subman) is correct in his opinion about 8765 (d)

[dedkad]

Are you showing a paper boundary on your topo map or are you doing a field survey of the boundary?

[LS 4722]

that will have a non monumented boundary on it.

Well, all of my maps have paper boundary's on them, some even have a mylar boundary on them.

Subman understood it perfectly

[LS_8750]

PL_APPROX would be a good handle for this forum.

[Cody Hustead]

The Big Question:

Is a "Boundary Survey" really a "Boundary Survey" if it does not result in found/set final monumentation on the actual boundary in question?

If the answer is "NO", then no ROS or CR necessary. It's still a paper survey (insert disclaimer here).

If the answer is "YES", Then how much more can it cost to hammer a pipe in the dirt?

If you have done a real "Boundary Survey", then hammering a pipe in the dirt is ~1% of the work.

I think my opinion today is that without final monumentation on the line in question, you have performed a paper survey (albeit an expensive one with a high confidence level).

I'd be interested to hear other opinions.

Cody Hustead

[LS 4722]

Pipes are not the only monuments to a boundary.

[Cody Hustead]

And?

[LS 4722]

Building ties. Wall ties. Graphical.. anything that's on the map can be used to, +/- the map scale, locate the boundary shown by scale.

[dedkad]

Building ties. Wall ties. Graphical.. anything that's on the map can be used to, +/- the map scale, locate the boundary shown by scale.

I disagree. Unless your deed refers to a building or wall tie (and hopefully they never will), then those dimensions have nothing to do with the boundary of a lot. Those dimensions only serve to demonstrate to the building official that they are meeting code requirements.

[LS 4722]

Those dimensions only serve to demonstrate to the building official that they are meeting code requirements.

In your dreams they do

[pls7809]

Like Field of Dreams: If you build it, they will come

If you dimension it, they will use it.

Regardless of the purpose of a tie to the building corner. If you tie the PL to a building corner or fence corner, or other improvement (with or without setting the corner), you have established that line on the ground.

[bruce hall]

some pretty vivid dreams recently. Different stuff since I got sick a while back.

But even I haven't had that scenario regarding dimensions in my dreams, even though that should be the only place that it should exist, if at all.

:)

Thanks, Paul, that was good.

[PLS7393]

Unfortunately if a map shows a dimension tie to the boundary, then you have established the boundary and the building/wall/structure can be used as an accessory to establish the boundary. The key word here that the Board sees is "establish", as outlined in the B&P Codes.

It is a hard concept and additional cost to the clients, that in my opinion is not always a benefit, mandating a boundary survey for a topo map for design purposes of a house addition.

Unfortunately the business end that the Board does not understand (or see) is that a client will not hire the true professional that wants to follow the law and file a CR or ROS, and they will hire a surveyor who does not estimate the additional costs to file the appropriate document (CR or ROS).

[LS 4722]

Would you please provide the B&P code for "establish"?

All the surveys I have done, for retracing others, has always been to 're establish' a point or line.

[Jim Frame]

To "re-establish" is to "establish again." It's still establishment as anticipated by the statute.

[PLS7393]

Would you please provide the B&P code for "establish"?

All the surveys I have done, for retracing others, has always been to 're establish' a point or line.

Per your request:
Section 8762.(b)(4) and Section 8765(d)

If you re-establish, then a corner record would suffice.

[Cody Hustead]

Quote:
Building ties. Wall ties. Graphical.. anything that's on the map can be used to, +/- the map scale, locate the boundary shown by scale.

Is he really re-establishing the boundary if his ties are expected to be scaled off the map?

I hardly see this as adhering to any standards of practice for an actual boundary survey.

Cody Hustead

[E_Page]

It's not about whether the use of the info from a topo drawing would meet the surveyor's standard of care in establishing a boundary. It's about how a client, a contractor, fence builder, etc. might use that info and whether a judge or jury feels that their use of it seems reasonable.

If there is a dimensioned tie from a fixed object to a nearby boundary line, then you have provided a means for some end user to reasonably stretch a tape and conclude "there's where the surveyor said it is."

As far as a boundary shown but no dimensioned ties shown, it starts getting a bit more fuzzy. If it's a 1"=400' drawing and the boundary scales 150' from a building corner, it's not likely that either a judge or a jury would think it reasonable that an end user expect to be able to scale and measure off to a precise boundary location. But if the drawing is 1"=10' and the distance from a clearly located fixed object to the boundary is within the reach of an average pocket tape (25' or so), a judge or jury of non-surveyors would more than likely expect that the boundary shown should be accurate and that scaling and measuring is not at all unreasonable for a homeowner, contractor, or fence builder.

Expectations for the surveyor in establishing a boundary on the ground are a whole different category. We're (rightly) held to a much higher standard in that, and similarly held to a high standard when it comes to the veracity of the information we place on a final mapping product.

[pls7809]

"Reestablishment" is in 8762(b)(4)...I think added in 2012.

(4) The location, relocation, establishment, reestablishment, or retracement of one or more points or lines not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey, the positions of which are not ascertainable from an inspection of the subdivision map, official map, or record of survey.