ROS Required?

[dbeard15]

A survey was performed to provide construction stakes for a room addition to an existing house. The coordinates for the addition corners were calculated and surveyed using existing established subdivision centerline monuments as a basis of bearings. Therefore, the points were established using record information. These points were calculated to be set within the City building setback limits. The construction stakes did not provide any points, stakes, hubs, nails or any other physical evidence that could be construed as representing any property corner, property line or offset points or offset lines for the property. Is the surveyor required to file a ROS pursuant to Section 8762 (b) of the Land Surveyors Act? - DB

[Ian Wilson]

Is the addition tied to a PL that is NOT shown on a record map? If so, it and the reference marks ARE monuments to the line.

[TTaylor]

I agree with Ian.

Under the situation that you described, the new addition is now a very good monument referencing the owners limits. It was built based on your survey and has a well defined relationship to the limits of ownership.

You have done the research for your analysis to know what your opinion is of the limits of ownership so that you can establish the actual set back.

[LS 4722]

Ridiculous.

I hope all the advocates of this type of RS filing also file an RS for every curb stake, sewer stake, storm drain stake that they set when these stakes reference (maybe begin at or end at) any line that is not shown on a filed or recorded map.

[LS 4722]

Is the addition tied to a PL that is NOT shown on a record map? If so, it and the reference marks ARE monuments to the line.

Which will probably be covered over (or destroyed) by the finish grading and or paving that will come after the addition is framed and poured.

[LS 4722]

A survey was performed to provide construction stakes for a room addition to an existing house. The coordinates for the addition corners were calculated and surveyed using existing established subdivision centerline monuments as a basis of bearings.

Did you end up tying the addition into the footprint of the existing building after all those calcs?

.... These points were calculated to be set within the City building setback limits.

Did the addition exceed the minimum setback requirements?

The construction stakes did not provide any points, stakes, hubs, nails or any other physical evidence that could be construed as representing any property corner, property line or offset points or offset lines for the property.

Did you provide a signed map showing stakes relative to the PL or relative to the new foundation line, or did you just provide stakes and a letter of certification that the new addition did not violate the zoning setback?

Is the surveyor required to file a ROS pursuant to Section 8762 (b) of the Land Surveyors Act? - DB

That's the million dollar question.

[bruce hall]

whole lot about what the survey disclosed. Don't really care what you set or didn't set. But what does the map that was prepared for the owner/contractor state was surveyed?

Did the survey disclose any material discrepencies with data shown on the previous maps of record? Are all the measured distances and bearing of the survey relatively close to the record? And how close? Was any proportioning performed, or did the survey hold record distance from one end of the block, and throw the slope in the other end of the block? Or did the block measure up PERFECTLY per the record(in whose dreams?)

Did the survey disclose physical change, which in whole or part, does not appear on a previous map of record? I mean, where are the original monuments at the lot corners of the property? Were they never set? Or does physical change have nothing to do with monuments?

I mean, what are the physical items normally shown on a record map that could change? I am talking about something physical, something that can be touched. Even the roads, streets, and lots are normally NOT described as, dirt, asphalt, concrete, grass. Normally ONLY THE MONUMENTS-i.e. one inch iron pipe 18 inches long tagged LS 1069(whoever he is) are physically described. Or maybe the writers of this portion of 8762 didn't care about missing, destroyed, replaced, disturbed survey monuments. "The pipes are gone, but who cares. Just setting the setback lines on a piece of land that can't be anywhere else but here."

I am probably out in left field regarding missing monuments being physical change. If I am, fine with me, but I think that the writers of this portion of 8762, which has been around a really looooooonnnnnnnggggg time were concerned with this "physical change". But maybe they were just concerned with whether the creek ain't there any more, or the impassable mountain no longer exists ;) !!!

[LS 4722]

....one inch iron pipe 18 inches long tagged LS 1069(whoever he is)

See below

Or maybe the writers of this portion of 8762 didn't care about missing, destroyed, replaced, disturbed survey monuments. "The pipes are gone, but who cares. Just setting the setback lines on a piece of land that can't be anywhere else but here."

Or maybe the authors were just concerned about providing a simple public record.

What they did not intend was to have a regulation that would become the huge stumbling block to land surveyors and the public that the self appointed experts have made it out to be.

[bruce hall]

"Or maybe the authors were just concerned about providing a simple public record."

Chances are really, really good that at the time this portion of 8762 was written, the preparation and filing of a RS was a simple public record to create and file.

Things have changed since then. The "old"(Pre 1960) Record of Survey maps that I have viewed are very simple, finding a couple nails/spikes,a rock or stone, or a few pipes, setting a couple of things, and every one knows that LS 4743 or LS 1069 or LS 485 (Norman Bates' grandfather?)was out there doing something. These RS's were very much a "stick figure" with a north arrow, scale, two signatures and some numbers on it.

Now a days the maps are cluttered with all kinds of stuff. Probably because surveyors since 1960 have been surveying land and setting/finding stuff (tagged or not) which a proper recorded survey would disclose.

Here in the OC checking fees have never been charged for reviewing a RS, but other counties usually charge fees. I don't know when this process started, the checking fees being charged by the CS, but I bet it was post 1960, maybe even post 1970. Now the checking fees might be construed by some to be a "huge stumbling block", and I can see that point of view.

Don't know what else to say Paul. I have some agreement with you in this regard. BUT I would rather discuss this over this forum than with the Administrative Law Judge or Roger Frank at the JPPC here in the OC.

[LS 4722]

Mr Chapman , LS 1203, was unique. I have come across his maps many a time. As you can see, he would get quite a few surveys on one sheet.

Basic.. in most cases he shows what he used for control, shows what he set, describes the land, names the client and places the date of the survey down.

[Anthony Maffia]

About 10 or 12 years ago, I asked an assistant county surveyor about filing CRs for construction staking. His take was that it was technically required, for foundations, sewers, curbs, etc. But he wasn't looking forward to getting a few thousand CRs each week to index and file...

Construction staking should be made exempt. This is a silly argument to keep coming up after.

It would be so much more helpful to focus on cities / contractors destroying monuments.

[Dave Lindell]

Wasn't he the one-armed surveyor?