California Surveyors Forums

We search and find no monument, then proceed to file a Record of Survey that goes around several blocks and is very detailed to show many and I mean many monuments that support our decision to reestablish a lot boundary (and has also been reviewed by two PLS's). While our record of Survey is in for 1st check, the city does construction and removes the “Concreteâ€￾ road. Their surveyor finds the monument that we could not find under the concrete road.

Our Record of Survey comes back with minimum comments and is ready for Mylar. While we prepare our Mylar the other surveyor turns in his finding on the monument that was under the concrete road.

When our record of Survey goes back into the county for recording, they send a letter stating that we have to re-survey the entire area and include the monument that was found.


My question is does this now mean that the county believes that a surveyor should use a jackhammer and tear-out the concrete road every time we search. If this is the way it is supposed to be then I will jump at the chance to use a jackhammer at every intersection I come across.

What is the true definition of “Diligent Searchâ€￾?

I am very temped to tell the county “tough s**tâ€￾.

The county will probably make you get an encroachment permit, have insurance for at least a million dollars, prepare a traffic diversion plan, prepare civil drawings for the repair of the damaged road, and signed by a civil, post bonds, and so on. And to add salt in the wound the county my have conditions of approval to construct curb, gutter and sidewalk 100 feet each way from where you dig or jackhammer.

Only after all of that may you dig for a monument, only to find that it has been disturbed by a jackhammer.

I may be missing the point here, but; does the County Surveyor want you to show these monuments just to put them on record or do the location of these monuments affect your "reestablished lot boundary"? If they do affect your "reestablished lot boundary" it would seem you would want to revisit your survey before recording it.

bwatkins wrote:I may be missing the point here, but; does the County Surveyor want you to show these monuments just to put them on record or do the location of these monuments affect your "reestablished lot boundary"? If they do affect your "reestablished lot boundary" it would seem you would want to revisit your survey before recording it.

Don't know, the other surveyor just put it on a tie sheet and filed (good for him, wished everyone actually filed their work). So, if it affects, I don't know yet. We are going back out. I just want to complain about something for now.

I tried complaining about this at home but my wife just don't seam to care, although I have to listen to it when the nail salon screws up her nails. I sure am glad I have all of you guys.

P.S. Does anyone know a good nail salon?

Speaking of Riff-Raff.

David,
I'll be up in your neck of the woods for 27 project sites over the next two months. I'll call you when I head up.

It sounds like your original corner note would have been something to the effect of, "search location of monument per xxxx falls in concrete road, not found". And it sounds like this was a fairly important monument to have. I'm not sure it's reasonable to start jack-hammering away into concrete in this case, since you apparently had an alternative method of calc'ing a location for it. Depends how bad you really needed it, but one has to set their own standard for diligence.

So now, it turns out the monument you needed exists and is accessible, so that's good. Don't you want to run out and tie it and see how it fits your solution? It's not clear what you're getting at with your question of the County Surveyor's expectations in terms of whether you should have initially started removing concrete or not. Sounds inconvenient to be all the way to mylar and this happens, but isn't there some benefit to having the missing monument now? I hope it "fits".

Dave Ryan

I don't know what to say.

Greg,

Great example of how to handle such a situation. Fortunately, you had a reasonable individual/agency to deal with.


Coy,

I would think that if this had been a record monument/position that had an effect on your client's boundary, that you would have searched for it and at least had a note of "strong magnetic reading under concrete road surface; did not excavate".

The County surveyor wants you to go back and locate this mon to include on your survey (is this an RS or a subdivision?), so it must have some effect.

If this is for an RS, the County Surveyor cannot require you to do this, but if it has some effect, it should be located and analyzed (glad to read you are doing that).

Bottom line: the local govt should have brought the mon to the surface when the road was paved, or at least when it was brought to their attention. But you should have searched this position in the first place and had some indication that it might be present under the concrete. With that info, you would have had 2 options - 1) take it to the municipality and insist that they excavate it, or 2) excavate it yourself and verify the monument and its position for your survey.

This is for a Record of Survey and like I said I am tempted to tell the county just file it. However we will go back out, shoot it, and then use it appropriately.

When I first got this letter I was frustrated by having to “start over”, after I have sleep on it over the week-end, I am no longer frustrated with the county but I am now frustrated with a Party Chief that can look me in the eyes and tell me there is nothing there. The worst thing is that he is no longer with us, so I can’t tell him he is fired. (JK). Now it is time to get to work and do the job correctly, the way it should have been done the first time.

Thanks for everybodies input.