|
A |
The following items are excerpts from the minutes of the Colorado Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers, Professional Land Surveyors and the Survey Quorum of the Board. They are provided in this format to afford a central and simple location to search for the Board's or Quorum's position on various land surveying topics and are intended to be informative. The circumstances are specific to the particular land surveying situation that the Board reviewed and care should be taken in extrapolating the position of the Board/Quorum for other conditions. NOTE: A full copy of the Board or Quorum minutes can be here.
To search on a particular land surveying subject, click on the "Edit" drop down list on the tile bar, then click on "Find", and type in the word(s) you are looking for. Try to use a word(s) that would be specific to the subject matter you are looking for, i.e., ALTA, aliquot, rehabilitate.
From:
Board Minutes
Date:
April 12, 2013
From:
Warren D. Ward, PLS
Subject:
Request for Opinion – Clarification on Board Rule 6.5.4 – Monuments Shall Conform to Statutes
Warren D. Ward, PLS #25971, Grand County Surveyor, requested that the following questions be answered:
1. Does Board Rule 6.5.4 require all professional land surveyors to set new pins at exact, precise mathematical dimensions when found original monuments do not lie at the same exact location?
2. Does the word, “location,” in the context of this Board Rule, prohibit the professional land surveyor to accept a found monument based on any legal rationale that confirms it is the property corner, and require all professional land surveyors to apply only mathematical precision as a test for verification?
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to respond to Mr. Ward with the following:
It is the Board’s opinion that Rule 6.5.4 is intended to make sure that monumentation is maintained in a physical condition in conformance with the statutes and not to use this rule as an excuse to set a pin cushion monument in any circumstance, let alone beside a verified original monument. Original monumentation, unless set fraudulently, has no error since the establishment of that monument is what establishes the location of the original corner. This concept has been verified and re-verified ad infinitum by our court systems. It is probably in every survey textbook ever written, and it is a concept that has been in existence, in one form or another, for over 4000 years.
Please note that original monumentation set fraudulently is not the same as original monumentation set in error, or to standards of a different era. Obviously, with modern equipment and methodologies we have the capability to measure more precisely today than many decades ago. However, this ability to measure better and verify that the original monumentation location does not conform precisely to the mathematical location described on a plat or in a legal description, does not in any way diminish the fact that the placement of an original monument establishes the location of the corner most accurately.
Retracement Land Surveying is the re-establishment of property lines based on a well-reasoned opinion, which itself should be based on the evaluation of evidence. A legal description and a plat with dimensioning are each only one piece of evidence of the location of a property line. However, the placement of the dimensions in a legal description or plat on the ground in a precise manner without regard to the evaluation of physical evidence found in the field is not the practice of professional land surveying, nor the completion of a well-reasoned opinion.
From:
Survey Quorum Minutes
Date(s):
April 13, 2012, June 8, 2012 & August 10, 2012
From:
Lee Stadele, PLS
Subject:
Request for Opinion – Improvement Location Certificates (ILCs)
Board Action:
Lee Stadele, PLS #26300, submitted an inquiry to the Survey Quorum in which he reported that title companies and/or realtors are using Improvement Location Certificates (ILCs), which were prepared for specific clients pursuant to §38-51-108, C.R.S., in order to close mortgage loans for other clients and for whom these ILCs were not prepared.
He has also seen title companies and/or realtors ask individual owners of parcels to sign affidavits stating "nothing has changed on the parcel", again using ILCs which had not been prepared for these owners. He believes both practices are violations of the statute.
Mr. Stadele requested a Survey Quorum Opinion on a list of questions. It was the consensus of the Quorum to respond as noted below:
1. When title companies and/or realtors use Improvement Location Certificates ("ILCs") that were prepared for the use of a specific client to close a mortgage loan for another client, is this procedure legal per Colorado Revised Statute 38-51-108?
A: Section 38-51-108, C.R.S., defines who the land surveyor can and cannot prepare an ILC for; that it is not a Land Survey Plat or an Improvement Survey Plat; and the requirement of a statement on the certificate and certain wording. It does not define what title companies or realtors can do with the ILC and the legality of its use is unknown. The Board's authority is limited to Professional Land Surveyors preparing the ILCs for a specific client, not over mortgage companies or brokers.
It is possible to include a statement on the ILC: "The use of this Improvement Location Certificate by any person or entity other than the person or entity certified to without the express permission of (PLS or Surveying Company Name) is prohibited."
2. When title companies and/or realtors ask individual owners of parcels to sign an Affidavit that "nothing has changed on the parcel," using an ILC that was prepared for another client, is this procedure legal per §38-51-108, C.R.S.?
A: The signing of an Affidavit by the property owner does not comply with §38-51-108, C.R.S. A Professional Land Surveyor is the only person that can sign the ILC and statement certifying to its authenticity. An Affidavit on an ILC does not meet the minimum standards for ILCs set out in Board Rule 6.6. An Affidavit signed by a property owner would probably not have the same legal bearing as an ILC.
3. Assuming that DORA is not equipped to enforce the current statute, wouldn't it be prudent and wise to change the statute?
A: The desire to change the statute regarding ILCs is something that may be more appropriate for the professional associations and the industry to pursue.
4. Would DORA consider eliminating Improvement Location Certificates as a type of "survey" entirely?
A: It is not up to DORA to decide what survey types to retain or eliminate in the Colorado Revised Statutes. This is a decision for the Colorado General Assembly and it is the Board's responsibility to modify its Rules and Policies to reflect any changes in the statutes.
5. If DORA agrees that the use of ILCs by clients other than whom they were created for violates the current statute, can or should individual land surveyors or survey firms notify the realtors or title companies in their specific part of the state of the Survey Quorum's findings?
A: The Board does not have any jurisdiction over the use of Improvement Location Certificates nor its enforcement.
From:
Survey Quorum Minutes
Date:
January 13, 2012
From:
Mike Greer, PLS
Subject:
Request for Opinion – Offsets to Property Pins that are in Public Right of Way
Board Action:
Mike Greer, PLS #29751 and Board Member, requested a Survey Quorum discussion about crosses or tags/nails in a sidewalk and offsets to property pins that are not points but are offsets to the actual corner for reference purposes in subdivisions. The Survey Quorum reviewed the information currently on the Q&A section of the website regarding removal of monuments prior to construction as discussed at the July 9, 2011 meeting. It was the consensus of the Survey Quorum to issue the following opinion:
There have been some recent inquiries to the Survey Quorum about land survey plats that contain a statement that monuments are to be set at a later date due to imminent construction that would destroy the monuments, snow presently on the ground, etc.
There is no provision in Colorado's statutes or the Board Rules that allow the setting of monuments at a later date. Thus, a statement on a land survey plat of setting monuments in the future is unacceptable. § 38-51-106 (1)(f), C.R.S., requires a description of all monuments either found or set on a land survey plat. All monuments shown set shall be in the ground by the time the surveyor seals and signs the land survey plat.
This brings up the concern of setting monuments within projects where construction activity may remove them shortly after being set. Looking at § 18-4-508(2), C.R.S., it is a class 2 misdemeanor for anyone to remove a control corner. "Any person who knowingly removes or knowingly causes to be removed any public land survey monument, as defined by section 38-53-103 (18), C.R.S., or control corner, as defined in section 38-53-103 (6), C.R.S., or a restoration of any such monument or who knowingly removes or knowingly causes to be removed any bearing tree knowing such is a bearing tree or other accessory, as defined by section 38-53-103 (1), C.R.S., even if said person has title to the land on which said monument or accessory is located, commits a class 2 misdemeanor unless, prior to such removal, said person has caused a Colorado professional land surveyor to establish at least two witness corners or reference marks for each such monument or accessory removed and has filed or caused to be filed a monument record pursuant to article 53 of title 38, C.R.S." This means any construction activity that removes control corners is illegal. But the statute has a provision in it to allow removal of the corner and be in compliance with the law by having a professional land surveyor reference the monument for later replacement before it is disturbed by construction.
Lack of knowledge that these laws exist is most likely the reason monuments are removed. It is imperative that the land surveyor make those aware that there is a law that prohibits removal of control corners and since the statute has assigned the task to the land surveyor to preserve them, assist those to comply with the law.
Additional information on this can be found under the Surveyor's Q & A website page referencing the Board Meeting Date January 14, 2001, Tabled Request for Board Opinion – Removal of Monuments Prior to Construction.
The members requested the opinion, after final approval, be sent to contractor associations, all Colorado county building departments and road/bridge departments. They also requested this information be published in the next PLSC Side Shots quarterly update.
From:
Survey Quorum Minutes
Date:
January 13, 2012
From:
Roger Kelley, PLS
Subject:
Request for Opinion – Monumentation Requirements and ALTA Surveys
Board Action:
Roger Kelley, PLS #24667, requested an opinion concerning monumentation requirements and ALTA surveys. His question was whether monuments were required to be set or not. It was the consensus of the Survey Quorum to respond to Mr. Kelley with the following:
This issue is addressed in Board Rule 6.12 which requires that monuments be set when performing ALTAs, even if removed during construction. All parties, including the contractor should be made aware of Section 18-4-508, C.R.S. It was requested that an item entitled "ALTA Monumentation and the Bulldozers" be placed on the next Survey Quorum agenda for discussion.
From:
Survey Quorum Minutes
Date:
January 13, 2012
From:
Michael Dlin, PLS
Subject:
Request for Opinion – Obliteration of Range Line Tie Crosses on Denver Wastewater Management Division of Public Works
Board Action:
Earl Henderson, PLS #34993 and Board Member, brought to the Survey Quorum a request for opinion from Mr. Michael Dlin, PLS #34423, and his inquiry about the requirement for replacement of obliterated monuments after curb & gutter maintenance by the Wastewater Management Division of Denver Public Works in his neighborhood in 2009. It was the consensus of the Survey Quorum to respond to Mr. Dlin with the same opinion as in the Offset to Property Pins request for opinion above. The members requested the opinion, after final approval, be sent to Denver's Division of Public Works.
From:
Survey Quorum Minutes
Dates:
September 9, 2011
From:
Delmer Hamilton , PLS
Subject:
Request for Opinion – Subdivision Plats to be Filed as Land Survey Plats
Board Action:
At the June 10, 2011 meeting, the Survey Quorum considered a Request for a Board opinion by Mr. Delmer Hamilton, PE/PLS #4440 concerning whether or not he had a statutory obligation to review, index and file subdivision plats as a County Surveyor similar to land survey plats. The Quorum responded. Mr. Hamilton requested further consideration. It was the consensus of the Survey Quorum to respond to Mr. Hamilton with the following:
The county surveyor is required to perform the duties outlined under Section 30-10-903(1), C.R.S. only.
- A surveyor should only be examining plats if authorized by the Commissioners pursuant to Section 30-10-903(2), C.R.S.
- Pursuant to Section 38-50-101, C.R.S., the county surveyor is to maintain a survey plat records file and index system for depositing plats. Plats deposited are totally separate from the clerk and recorder’s office recording of documents. This is supported in Section 38-50-101(5)(b): “No plat deposited in accordance with this section shall constitute notice pursuant to section 38-35-109.”
From:
Survey Quorum Minutes
Date:
June 10, 2011
From:
Kim Albers, PLS
Subject:
Request for Opinion Basis of Bearing – Who Can Specify the Establishment of the Basis for Bearing?
Board Action:
The Survey Quorum reviewed Mr. Albers request for an opinion concerning Broomfield County dictating how and what to use for the basis of bearing instead of allowing the PLS to make that determination. Mr. Albers requested that the three following questions be answered:
- Is the Basis of Bearing Statement on a plat solely the responsibility of the licensed surveyor or can it be changed, modified or dictated by others. If so, by whom, and to what extent?
- Is the policy of requiring a new basis of bearings every time a property is surveyed consistent with land surveying practice and procedures?
- Do these Broomfield requirements constitute practicing land surveying? It was the consensus of the Survey Quorum to respond to Mr. Albers with the following:
- There isn’t a statute that states that “establishing a Basis of Bearings is the sole responsibility of a PLS.” Section 38-51-106(e), C.R.S., only requires a statement by a Professional Land Surveyor explaining how bearings were determined.
- Counties have been requiring subdivision plats be tied to their surveys and control systems for years, so this would appear to be the standard of practice.
- Section 30-28-133, C.R.S., gives counties the responsibility for establishing subdivision regulations, so this would not constitute the practice of land surveying.
A client or government entity can require that certain monuments be used for the basis of bearing. The surveyor shall ensure the basis of bearing statement shall use one of the methods described in Board Rule 6.8.3, showing the mathematical relationship from the basis of bearing line to the survey, and label the basis of bearing line.
From:
Survey Quorum Minutes
Date:
March 11, 2011
From:
Mike Greer, PLS
Subject:
Request for Opinion Basis of Bearing – Found Pins vs. Set Pins
Board Action:
The Survey Quorum reviewed Mr. Greer’s request for an opinion about whether a basis of bearing for a survey can be established between two monuments that are set, rather than found, as part of the survey. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Survey Quorum to refer to Board Rules 6.8.1 and 6.8.2 which state:
- 6.8.1 Purpose. The purpose of a basis of bearing statement on a land survey plat is to enable other surveyors to retrace all or part of that survey. Any basis of bearing statement that does not facilitate a retracement is inadequate.
If two monuments are set as the result of a survey, are completely defined on the plat, and the bearing indicated, that survey is retraceable and meets the rule’s purpose. It is also validated in Board Rule 6.8.2.
- 6.8.2 Composition. The basis of bearing statement shall state the method used to derive the bearing (i.e., assumed, astronomic, geodetic, grid, reference to recorded or deposited survey, etc.) and the bearing between fully described monuments (i.e., monument material, diameter, length (if set), cap size and material, cap markings/stampings, etc.) at each end of a single line. When the monuments at each end of the reference line are fully described on the plat, they need only be referenced in the "Basis of Bearings" statement. A land survey plat shall show the graphic and mathematical relationship between the basis of bearing and the survey.[Emphasis added.]
Board Meeting Date:
January 14, 2011
Subject:
Request for Board Opinion – E.C. Jake Jacobsen, PLS – Online Monument Record System Search
Board Action:
The Survey Quorum reviewed a letter from E.C. Jake Jacobsen, PLS, regarding the limitations of the current Online Monument Record System’s search capabilities.
Program Director Kinnaird Linn recently met with the Department’s IT section. There is a plan to transition to new software and hardware by the end of the 2011 calendar year that will improve the system. However, Mr. Jacobsen’s problem appears to stem from not using the wildcard function when searching the monument records.
Board Meeting Date:
January 14, 2011
Subject:
Tabled Request for Board Opinion – Lawrence T. Connolly, PLS – Removal of Monuments Prior to Construction
Board Action:
At the July 9, 2010 meeting, the Survey Quorum reviewed an inquiry regarding replacing or resetting monuments after construction and tabled the discussion until Staff conducted and completed research of past Board opinions on this issue. It was the consensus of the Survey Quorum that its position remains virtually unchanged from what was stated in the September 2001 minutes. It is restated here for reference.
It was the consensus of the Survey Quorum that if it is known which corners will be destroyed during construction, they may be referenced prior to destruction and replaced after construction by a surveyor using his/her own caps. An exhibit map should be prepared showing the original monuments, how they were referenced, and what monuments and caps were used to replace the destroyed monuments. This exhibit should be deposited. In this situation the surveyor is not attesting to the accuracy of the original corners, only replacing them as found.
In the event that the corners are destroyed before they can be referenced, the replacement of those corners would then necessitate the preparation of a land survey plat in accordance with state statutes.
Board Meeting Date:
November 12, 2010
Subject:
Request for Board Opinion – J. David Foley, PLS – Changing Common Boundary Lines
Board Action:
The Board considered a request for a Board opinion relating to two situations involving changing common boundary lines.
The first question involved a question of changing a common boundary line between two properties and whether it is acceptable to monument only that line or if the entire perimeter of the two properties is required to be monumented. One of the properties is a metes and bounds parcel.
The second question posed was the vacation of a boundary line between two contiguous parcels and whether the entire perimeter of the newly combined parcels must be monumented. The properties are metes and bounds parcels.
It was the consensus of the Board that neither scenario falls within the statutory requirements for platted subdivisions. Therefore, it was the Board’s conclusion that the county requirements would govern in these situations.
Board Meeting Date:
November 12, 2010
Subject:
Request for Board Opinion – Ted Shehorn, UNL – “Information Map”
Board Action:
The Board considered a request for a Board opinion relating to an Information Map prepared by licensed Professional Land Surveyor. There are no statutory criteria for the preparation of an “Information Map.” Since the Board was not able to determine the purpose of this document, it is unable to judge whether it is correct or not. The Board suggested that the individual meet with the land surveyor to discuss his concerns and should that effort fail, submit a complaint to the Board’s office including as much additional documentation as feasible to assist the Board in determining the scope of work in this project, including the contract.
Board Meeting Date:
April 9, 2010
Subject:
Request for Board Opinion Regarding the Definition of “Survey Point” – Roger Nelson, PLS
Board Action:
The Board reviewed Mr. Nelson’s inquiry regarding the definition of “survey point”. It was the recommendation of the Survey Quorum this is an ambiguity in the statute that should be addressed in sunset review. Until then,because of the ambiguity the Quorum agreed that no action should be taken should a complaint be filed on the basis of a “survey point”.
Board Meeting Date:
November 9, 2007
Subject:
Request for Board Opinion on Preparation of Easement Exhibit Maps – Robert G. Persichitte, PLS #37174
Board Action:
The Board reviewed Mr. Persichitte’s request for the Board’s opinion regarding preparation of easement exhibit maps. The Board directed that Mr. Persichitte be notified that any documents that are signed and sealed by a licensee are to be prepared under statute requirements and a clear statement qualifying any attestations should be included when applicable.
Date Received:
May 13, 2007
Subject:
Request for Board Opinion on Property Boundary Monumentation – Albert H. Barnes, PE-PLS #7481
Board Action:
The Board reviewed a request for opinion regarding property boundary monumentation submitted by Mr. Barnes. It was the consensus of the Board to direct Mr. Barnes to refer to section 35-51-105 (7), C.R.S., and deny his request to waive the requirement to monument specific corners.
Date Received:
March 8, 2007
Subject:
Request for Board Opinion Regarding Plats – James B. Ackerman, PLS
Board Action:
The Board reviewed a request for Board opinion on whether lot pins or plat bearings and distances that are run from the outer boundary hold. Paul Gilbert recused himself from the discussion and the vote and left the room during both. It was the consensus of the Board that there was not enough information provided to make a determination and that each case is unique requiring the individual to do research to make the determination.
Date Received:
March 2, 2007
Subject:
Request for Board Opinion Regarding Board Policy 60.2 – Dale V. Greer, PLS
Board Action:
The Board reviewed a request for Board opinion regarding Board Policy 60.2, depiction of easement and rights of way in subdivision plats. It was the consensus of the Board to direct Mr. Greer to refer to C.R.S. 38-51-105.
Subject:
Discussion About Quality of Submittals to Public Agencies
Board Action:
The Board reviewed and discussed the quality of professionals’ submittals to public agencies and whether the AES Board should attempt to require a higher level of submittal. It was the consensus of the Board that if the plans, calculations or specs are stamped and signed by the licensee, they shall meet the standard of care applicable for their intended use. Documents falling under the scope of Rule 5.1.4 C.R.S. shall be appropriately identified and qualified and shall meet the standard of care intended for their use.
Date Received:
October 24, 2006
Subject:
Bob Ward, Chief Building Official, City of Lamar
Board Action:
The Board reviewed an e-mail from Mr. Ward requesting a Board opinion on statute 12-25-303, C.R.S., as it relates to home rule cities. Board Council, John Roberts, reviewed the request and provided his informal opinion. It was the consensus of the Board to provide Mr. Ward with the memorandum written by the Mr. Roberts addressing his question.
(Click here to view the document)
From:
Survey Quorum Minutes
Dated:
June 9, 2006
Date Received:
February 23, 2006
From:
Dean P. Schultz, PLS
Subject:
Request for Opinion on Requirement for Showing Ties to Controlling Monumentation
Board Action:
The Survey Quorum reviewed Mr. Schultz's request for review of Section 38-51-106(1)(c) to clarify requirements for land survey plats. It was the consensus of the Quorum to respond to Mr. Schultz that with regard to Mr. Schultz's concerns that surveys may not be showing the ties between a parcel and a basis of bearing, the Quorum referred Mr. Schultz to Policy 60.1.1 which surveyors must follow. Regarding ties to control monumentation, the Quorum agreed that Mr. Schultz's interpretation of Section 38-51-106(1)(c) is correct and that dimensions to control monuments must be shown on a plat.
From:
Survey Quorum minutes
Dated:
June 9, 2006
Date Received:
March 24, 2006
From:
Thomas E. Cave, PLS
Subject:
Request for Opinion Regarding Monument Preservation
Board Action:
The Survey Quorum reviewed Mr. Cave's request for review of a procedure outlined in a City of Louisville correspondence of January 30, 2006, regarding existing survey monumentation, and the City's statement that "offset points or chiseled crosses placed in concrete walk or curb head will not be considered a survey monument unless recorded documentation is available and submitted." It was the consensus of the Quorum to request clarification from the City of Louisville of the term "recorded documentation" and what it meant in this instance. Further, it was the consensus of the Quorum to make the City of Louisville aware that surveyors must use all evidence in their work and chiseled crosses are often the best and only historical evidence available for property line determination. Standard procedures today in construction areas dictate that crosses should be referenced prior to construction. After new construction is completed, the location of the original chiseled crosses should be replaced with monumentation as currently required by section 38-51-105(6), C.R.S., in the original location. Irrespective of home rule status, anyone involved in a surveying task must still comply with State statutes requiring the responsible charge of a Professional Land Surveyor.
From:
Survey Quorum Minutes
Dated:
June 9, 2006
Date Received:
March 10, 2006
From:
LeRoy H. Stiles, PLS
Subject:
Request for Assistance on Surveyor Certification Wording
Board Action:
The Survey Quorum reviewed Mr. Stiles' request for Board assistance with the City of Fruita and their insistence on using certain certification language. It was the consensus of the Quorum to reaffirm its earlier statement of December 10, 2004, that local jurisdictions' requirements can be more restrictive than State requirements as long as they do not conflict with State requirements. The Quorum did not see a conflict with State law on this matter. If the issue continues, the Quorum recommended that assistance from insurance carriers might be appropriate.
From:
Survey Quorum Minutes
Dated:
June 9, 2006
Date Received:
March 14, 2006
From:
Charles Beresford, PLS
Subject:
Request for Opinion on the Monumentation of Condominium Map Phases
Board Action:
The Survey Quorum reviewed Mr. Beresford's request for a Board opinion on whether an individual Phase area needs to be monumented on the ground to reflect the Phase legal description that appears on a Condominium map. It was the consensus of the Survey Quorum to respond that when a condominium project is phased, only a very specific parcel is described as the boundary of a phase. A description of land that "may" be added to the project is also given. Under Mr. Beresford's interpretation, if for any reason, subsequent phases are not constructed or added to the project, the dividing line between the parcels will not have been monumented. A specific parcel is defined for the map and it has to be monumented before the map can be recorded. Each phase does need to be monumented as they are developed into condominiums.
From:
Board Minutes
Dated:
May 12, 2006
Date Received:
April 14, 2006
Subject:
Monument Record Not Filed - Daniel M. Russell, PLS #22583
Board Action:
The Board reviewed documentation submitted by Mike Drissel, PLS, Monument Record Reviewer, regarding monument records for Costilla County not filed and Mr. Russell's response. It was the consensus of the Board to direct Staff to request that Mr. Russell file a record on the monument referenced in the spirit of the intent of the Monument Record system, and to state that while the Board recognizes that the monument is not an official PLSS corner, it is a common practice to use the system in that area and a courtesy to other surveyors to file a record to enable them to use the information. Further, if Mr. Russell is not going to file a record in these instances, the Board strongly suggests that he not refer to the monument as a section corner.
From:
Board Minutes
Dated:
February 10, 2006
Date Received:
January 2, 2006
Subject:
Request for Board Direction on Surveyors' Certification Statements on Subdivision Plats - Jeffery Schaaf, PLS #37974
Board Action:
The Board reviewed Mr. Schaaf's request for Board direction on the issue of wording of land surveyors' certification statements on subdivision plats. It was the consensus of the Board to make Mr. Schaaf aware of the fact that local jurisdictions can be more restrictive than state requirements as long as they do not conflict with the state and refer him to Board Rule 6.2.1 for information on that which land surveyors may certify.
From:
Board Minutes
Dated:
January 13, 2006
Date Received:
November 28, 2005
Subject:
Request for Direction on a Monument Record - Richard L. Catlett, PE-PLS #26685
Board Action:
The Board reviewed Mr. Catlett's request for the Board's guidance in a matter whereby Timothy P. Fowler, Lapsed PLS #23041, filed a monument record that appears to be incorrect. It was noted that neither Mr. Catlett nor the Board has been able to contact Mr. Fowler. The Board suggested that Mr. Catlett file a monument record on his own corner, showing a tie to the other surveyor's corner, as well as an explanation on the record about the other corner, that it was possibly mismarked, and why Mr. Catlett did not agree with its location
From:
Survey Quorum Minutes
Dated:
December 9, 2005
Date Received:
November 17, 2005
Subject:
Request for Direction for Review of Monument Records - Michael W. Drissel, PLS, Monument Record Reviewer
Board Action:
The Survey Quorum reviewed Mr. Drissel's request for direction from the Quorum regarding several issues that have come to his attention during the course of his review of monument records. It was the consensus of the Board to respond as follows:
1. The first item deals with checking for monument records on found monuments set by another surveyor. Since the mid-1990s, the policy has been that the Monument Records Reviewer should check the monument record system on those monuments that were set in and since 1994 to determine whether a record had been filed as required by law. In his letter to the Board, Mr. Drissel suggested that it would be sufficient to allow the timeframe to float with a 10-year window, rather than continue to check for records on monuments back to 1994.
A: The Quorum considered this suggestion, agreed, and directed that a memo be drafted to codify its position as an informal Board direction.
2. The second item had to do with whether or not monuments that are encountered in the course of surveying for oil and gas wells are required to be upgraded and therefore have monument records filed on them when doing such well location certificates.
A: It was the Quorum's position that the performance of well location certificates is the practice of land surveying, that they therefore require the services of a licensed professional land surveyor, that monuments involved in such surveying are required to be upgraded, and monument records must be filed in accordance with the law. It was also the Quorum's position that it is willing to pursue action in circumstances where there are violations of the law.
3. The final item was an issue about witness corners and Mr. Drissel's observation of monument records indicating that oftentimes witness corners are being set rather than a monument box at the true corner position.
A: The Quorum stated that the way the statute is currently worded is clear on this issue as to when a reference monument may be set. Until the law is changed, it should be enforced as written. The monument records need to comply with the law. The Quorum directed that Mr. Drissel should use his best judgment in these matters, noting that licensees always have the option of appealing to the Board if they disagree with his discretion. |
