Physical change

[bruce hall]

Okay folks, section 8762 refers to the shall filing of an RS when the survey discloses "Material evidence or physical change......." that doesn't show up anywhere on a map.

What does physical change mean? I take it to mean the monuments of my lot to be surveyed are missing. The only thing that I can think of that is physical that is shown on the maps mentioned in 8762 are the monuments.

Brian Sousa made a good point on another message board regarding section 8765d in the RS exeptions portion of the law. Don't by shy with your opinions. " It's difficult to save your face and your a$$ in the same meeting." I'd rather save my tail.

Thank you, Bruce Hall LS

[dmi]

I know some folks have indicated that their opinion and they hinted that the Board would go along with this view with respect to material change as related to the character of recovered monuments. For example the tract map indicated rebar and caps were set at the corners and the retracing surveyor recover 2" iron pipes and tags. I have seen a situation where all the monuments called for by the map were set, but not in any configuration whihc had any resemblance to the record map ~ Physical change?

As far as phyiscal changes goes, I image that this situation might exist where development and improvements are not coincident with the layout of the recorded map. This often happens where there is common ownership of multiple lots in a subdivision.

I am curious to know what other think consitutes physical change.

[Ruel]

Bruce:

It seems that it could also mean that the monument has changed physically and that change isn't documented on a map. Such as when that 6"X6" redwood post suddenly becomes a 2"IP (either with or without a tag) and no one bothers to file ANYTHING.

I don't think that they originally intended to include missing pipes, but it would seem that this could be argued as physical change.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

I just wish the law would say what it means. Bruce is correct that a missing monument is a physical change but I don't think we would have the Corner Record option (where allowed) if every physical change required a Record of Survey.

All the mumbo-jumbo just seems to confuse people.

Notwithstanding the Code, I would just like to know if a Survey was done and what the Surveyor did. Whether that's in a Corner Record or Record of Survey makes no difference to me. If everything can be shown on a Corner Record, then why not?

I suppose the legislature is trying to say certain things (eg-material discrepancies, deed cuts and physical changes) need to be: 1) on a bigger piece of paper and 2) reviewed by the County Surveyor.

We could eliminate the Corner Record option, simplify the statute to Boundary requires an ROS regardless and FIX THE REVIEW FEES by statue.

It's not a particular problem for me, I mostly stick with ROS work at this point.

[lndbtchr]

I agree with Dave

More laws just make things worse, but then someone comes along and the gray areas need to become black and white.

The CR's, as I remember, we created because some agencies were changing enormus amounts to check a RS.

Set fees, by page, then someone draws a complex RS at 100 scale. Hard to read but saves him $$.

Lets start a solution here. Bet it takes 400 posts without achieving a definative answer.

[bruce hall]

4 replies to this question out of who knows how many people are out there. But it's only Monday.

I do not have a problem with surveys being documented with Corner Records. I believe that the law provides setting monuments via the Corner Record process, even though there is a "physical change" (nothing physical at the corner where there was once a 1 inch ip LS xxx).

My question would apply more when a survey was performed, no monuments were set at the corners, and no monuments were found at the corners. The existing records indicate iron pipes occupied those positions. Like in a ALTA.

Ruels comment would seem to apply very well regarding physical change.

Thank you so far. Bruce Hall LS

Who elso is out there?

[Jim Frame]

Count me with those who say that "material change" refers to a monument found that's of a character substantially different from the corresponding monument of record.

I don't consider minor discrepancies attributable to differences in descriptive practices (e.g., a 1/2" nominal ID pipe that's described on a map as a '7/8" iron pipe') or natural processes (e.g., a tag that's missing due to rusting or prior excavation) to constitute material change.