Monument Replacement Question

[Lee Hixson]

My understanding has always been that it's OK to replace an old rusted out monument with a new one, and document it with a Corner Record. But I have an odd, new situation that I need some input on.

I did a survey the other week for a client who owns a parcel out in the unincorporated outback of the county and found all 4 of his corners marked with rebar & cap monuments, in their record positions, per a 1974 RofS. No problems or discrepancies were uncovered. However, my client (who has owned the parcel for the past 20 years) was unaware of the existence of the monuments or the map, and had brought in 2' of fill on the east half of his lot to solve a drainage problem. The fill extends right up to his east P/L, burying the two monuments by a good two feet. The east line is not fenced now, but there is a fence running along his south P/L, extending beyond his property to the east and to the west.

What my client wants to do is put a new fence in along the east line, anchored at each end by two 10" diameter steel pipes, exactly centered on the existing corner monuments, taking them out in the process. Then he wants to fill them with concrete and have me set a new spike and brass washer in the concrete at the top of his mother-of-all fence corner posts! He wants me to document this with a Corner Record showing what was found and how they were replaced.

I counseled him against this, pointing out that these extremely wide posts would extend across his P/L into the neighbor's lots, and thus constitute an encroachment, but he said the neighbors don't mind, it's out in farmland, and he just wants to do it that way.

Here's my two questions:

1) I am going to advise him that I am against the 10" post being centered on the exact property corner. I think that is not a good idea. But he is a strong willed person and what if he sets those huge posts anyway, destroying the old monuments in the process? Can I make things right by setting a new point on top? I mean, after all, as strange as it is, isn't it comparable to replacing mons that are destroyed by new road construction, and then documented with a Corner Record?

2) Aside from the encroachment issue, am I permitted to replace an existing monument for any reason OTHER than that the old ones are damaged or rusted out too much? Could I, for example, do it to simply have my new one up at the surface of the imported fill?

[Brian8612]

You should be able to file a Corner Record, prior to construction showing what you have found and tied out. State which corners will be distroyed during the grading and construction of the fence. Then file a new corner record when you reset the lot corners, explaining and referencing the previous record. You should also deiscuss this with your County Surveyor to make sure he is on board with this.

[E_Page]

1. He is going to do it anyway, so don't fight it. Better that you mark the proper location than he guess at it.

Even your 1" IP is going to encroach by 1/2", so if the landowners are good with a 10" IP, that will make it that much easier for the next surveyor to find them. It's farmland after all. They think of their boundaries being marked by ditches, roads, and not always very straight fences. A 10" IP is more precise than any of those. Rather than advising him against it, embrace it as a great idea. If this were a town/city lot that he wanted to mark with 10" IPs, that would be a different matter.

2. Technically, you should be filing a pre-construction CR showing the found mons, and a post-construction CR showing your new mons. As far as I can tell, you are not precluded from filing a CR for any reason except where a RS is required. You could file one because you just wanted to have your cap at that location rather than the other guy's. (although that reason would cause most to roll their eyes at you - it would be a silly reason, but you could do it)

Bringing a monument to the surface is a perfect example of why one might want to remonument and file a CR. That exact reason even appears in the code with respect to roads. I see no reason why it wouldn't also carry over to any other ground surface.

[pls7809]

Sounds like you're not going to stop the guy. I would consider putting your concerns in writing via certified mail to him. Make sure in the letter he knows that there could be legal ramifications if the adjoining owner shows up one day and objects. But I would also definitely reset new mons if he does the work that he's threatening to do. As long as you CR it, you should be covered. I think the letter will be a good CYA if the adjoiner decides he doesn't like it and wants to come after your client and/or you.

[Ian Wilson]

Evan beat me to it. Good answer, BTW.

As far as getting the County Surveyor on board, he is already. §8771 of the PLS Act, as well as §732.5, 1492.5, 1810.5 of the California Streets & Highways Code set up the requirements in the state statutes.

I might also set a couple or so Witness Corners so there'll be something left when the nieghbors pull out the posts. Also, shorter survyors will be able to use them rather than having to climb ladders to see the marks in the top of the pipes.

[Lee Hixson]

Thanks, everyone. Good advice, and it sounds like we have pretty broad discretion in the area of monument replacement.

[subman]

Might want to make it two seperate contracts: one preconstruction CR and one post construction CR to clearly exclude yourself from the perception of you having provided construction survey services/advice and having any liability for a future fence/post encroachment.

[Steve Martin]

You might try the tack with the owner that if the fence is set exactly on the line, then it becomes a joint fence and technically he would have to ask his neighbor's permission to install and maintain the fence. To be sure that the fence remains in his control, set the fence at a 0.5' offset and monument the true corner with a disk in the footing of the fencepost. Some people will have issues with loosing control over 0.5' of their property, but having control over the installation and use of the fence may be important to you client.

[E_Page]

You city guys crack me up! He's a farmer! He expects that it would be a shared fence. 5" doesn't mean much to him. Permanency and ease of finding the points do.

You start talking 5" encroachments, control of fence, 0.5' offset, blah, blah, blah... and his eyes will glaze over until your done, then he's gonna look at you like your from Mars and proceed to do what he was going to do anyway because nothing you just said to him makes a hill of beans (or rice) difference to him.

[E_Page]

You city guys crack me up! It's farmland. Nobody is concerned about a 5" encroachment. Permanancy and ease of finding the points later are far more important.

Start explaining all this about 5" encroachments, sole control vs shared control of the fence, 0.5' offset, blah, blah, blah... and his eyes will glaze over until your done droning on, then he's gonna look at you like your from Mars and then do what he's going to do anyway, because it makes more sense under the circumstances.



But then again, maybe those GLO surveyors setting 12"x12"x18" notched stones back in the 1850s should have thought about encroachments too.

We'd all better start thinking about setting garment pins with our license numbers microstamped on the heads to minimize the encroachment of 1/2 of our pipes. I use 1" to 3" inside diameter pipes, depending upon the application. Good Lord! That's an encroachment of 0.6' to 1.52' each time I set the pipe correctly! Someone might flip out over that and I may be liable if my client builds the fence on line!


Absurd? Yes. Just as absurd as you will sound to that farmer when you caution him about the encroachment of his planned fence corner posts.

[Ian Wilson]

Hey, Evan!

The owner of Section 36, T7S, R1W, SBBM, set 10" pipes at the section corners and West quarter corner. Those buggers stood up about 10 feet. Even you and I couldn't see the top of those puppies. A couple of Witness Corners set along the lines would have been very nice.

I agree about the "encroachment", though.

[Steve Martin]

As I said, some people have control issues.

Maybe the common sense solution of putting his fence on his own property will not appeal to him, but it does seem absurd to set a monument on top of a fence post.

Even Farmers get irrational when it is over perceived use of their land, but I would not suggest you use ridicule to convince them to change their minds.

[LS_8750]

Sounds to me like the guy is doing you a favor. Placing a nice durable long lasting, identifiable, concrete filled 10 inch iron pipe in the ground for you.

I'd be happy to tag it.

[E_Page]

I do agree about setting witness monuments as accessories to the fence posts, which would be the primary monuments.

Farmers aren't like suburbanites. Very few expect to have sole ownership of a fence because that means sole responsibility for fence maintenance, which can be expensive and time consuming.

If this guy is spending his time and money to build it, you can bet that he will expect his neighbor to kick in some time and money when it comes time to maintain it.

[E_Page]

[LS_8750]

How much better off in the coastal mountains would we be if the government ran the township and range lines setting giant concrete filled iron pipes instead of those damned rinky dink redwood posts at all section corners?

I just discovered a quarter corner gone, it was there 10 years ago but its gone now. I'm Lucky with my collateral evidence if I can place it within half a foot of where it actually was set.

[Lee Hixson]

Maybe I should post a photo of the result; would make for a fitting denouement, wouldn't it? And, the beginning of a new contest: most impressive, most massive, most durable mon ever set in CA?

Let the competition begin.....

[Ian Wilson]

The Pacific Ocean is transitory in nature and doesn't count. Sit out two turns for such a bogus post.

[E_Page]

Besides that, no human surveyor set the Pacific Ocean. A set monument is by implication an artificial monument.

Sit out three turns Mr. Woolley!

[Ben Lund]

What about using a large ball of gas being 91,402,000 miles away as your backsight?

[Ben Lund]

If the earth is revolving around our backsite at 1,110 miles/minute and it takes the suns light 8.23 minutes to reach earth, wouldn’t our location be (1,110 miles/minute)(8.23 minutes) = 9,135 miles “off”?

I guess that’s not too bad considering the backsite is 91,402,000 miles away which would create a backsite delta of 0.006 seconds. Not too shabby!

[E_Page]

What about using a large ball of gas being 91,402,000 miles away as your backsight?

Artificial monuments only, Ben.

You were warned! Sit out 4 turns Mr. Lund!

[Ben Lund]

4 turns! ... I guess that's fair.

[Rob_LS]

I remember a colleague "training" a new survey tech to search for a monument - they had a +/- 1 foot search coord, and got the 'finder to sing near the base of a 2" diameter 6' tall galvanized fence post... As the new tech continued to make slicing passes with the shovel to remove dirt without damaging a tag or disk stamping the senior member put a hand on the top of the fence post and assumed the observation stance (sometimes known as shovel leaning). As his fingers ran over the top of the post, he realized it did not have a standard galvanized cap, but seemed to be filled with concrete and had the familiar feel of a tag and escutcheon pin in the surface. "Stop digging! Monument found"

[7702]

at 1100 miles per minute? No wonder I'm dizzy and aging faster than I had hoped!

Edit: now I get it. That's the velocity as we orbit the sun. So much for my excuse. Back to the bench for me. :(