|
|
From the Editor:
To
send Email to the webmaster, click on the icon:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ethics and the big
picture: So here's your self test. You should know if you passed or failed by your own answers. What would you have done? So how do you think this turned out? Is surveying a profession or a skilled trade? Is it strictly business? Are you obliged to educate the uneducated Engineer in this example? What do you think your peers would do? Do you think I should contact NOAA about this Engineer?
FYI: Brooks
ACT Texas Law: Section 2254 Texas State Government Code (Qualifications Based Professional Services Procurement)http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.2254.htm By the way, this took place on February 2, 2010 and as of this writing I have heard nothing from the Engineer in question.
by Bud
Thompson, editor & web master (02-15-2010)
I had a very interesting discussion
today with a local surveyor who was in complete opposition to the
"qualifications based selection" process. I must admit, after re-reading my
article above, that it may have offended a few surveyors in our area. So be it.
My intention was not to attack any specific surveyor for their practice, more to
draw attention to the passive breaking of Federal and State Laws. Breaking the law, in my opinion, is illegal at least and unethical at best.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Be assured, these are not the only unethical
practices going on in the Surveying profession. The Professional Surveyor I
talked to this morning, even if I disagreed with him, was professional. Our
conversation brought up another point we should be making regarding the way some
government contracts are being awarded. That Canon of Ethics No. 15 which states
"15.
Will not offer to pay, either directly or indirectly, any commission, political
contribution, gift, or other consideration in order to secure work, exclusive of
securing salaried positions through an employment agency. "Bud: Thanks for your interest
in our project and follow-up phone call. Best Regards, Jim"
I think this speaks for itself. I
am hopeful that the Surveyor was selected properly and that the "Public" is
protected.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject: Water Meter
Easements...again ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here we go again...........now it's the COH PWE department's turn.
Subject: Water Meter
Easements Recently (December 11, 2009) I attended the TBPLS meeting in Austin. I recommend all surveyors attend at least one per year. At this particular meeting the complaint reports were heard early on and they were discussed by the Board Members for nearly three hours. The point I took away form this and relative to the Water Meter Easements issue at hand is a discussion that came up about whether or not the survey could be put back on the ground. In simple language, could a competent surveyor take the information from the survey drawing and metes and bounds description and put the survey lines back on the ground with certainty? Isn't that what we look for in a record document? Is there enough information to put the survey back on the ground ? Not if the survey is pretty or hand drawn or CAD drawn or the size of a postage stamp or 24" X 36". The investigator asked that question in determining the primary facts of the complaint.
Now lets get back to the City of Houston Water Meter
Easements (WME). If you have prepared such a document lately you probably
already know what's coming. If not, brace yourself. You will now be required to
note: 1. Basis of bearings must be noted on both the plat and Metes & Bounds (good idea) 2. Coordinate referencing must also be noted on Metes & Bounds (good idea) 3. Coordinates must be GRID (I'm assuming they mean Texas Co-Ordinate System) 4. Combined scale factor must be noted on both the plat and Metes & Bounds (see below) 5. Please use updated City of Houston title block (see attached) (see below) 6. Correct Key Map & GIMS Map (by the way this is the FACET#) information must be noted on title block
7.
Record information
must be noted for the adjoining Right-of-Way (see
below)
Lets take for granted that the Subdivision Plat was
done in the City of Houston's Limits or ETJ and has Texas Co-ordinates on each
point on the boundary, including the point of commencement used for the WME and
that the bearings used on the plat are the same as those used on the WME (it
would be self defeating to change). Therefore the Basis of Bearing would be the
same, so number 1 & 2 are a no brainers. By the way if you are putting Texas
Co-Ordinate values on each point along the boundary why would you not choose to
utilize the State Plane Bearings as your basis of bearings? Record deed
bearings will be sufficient and be a good witness to the original survey
bearings but how hard would they be to reconstruct after construction and all
the boundary corners have been bulldozed out of existence? Number 5: The updated title block has changed from the previous by adding the "Chief Surveyor" to it. Number 6: Use the Key Map and HCAD Facet number (GIMS #). Which came first the HCAD FACET# or GIMS#?
Number 7: Record information must
be noted for the adjoining Right-of-way. I'm sorry but when will the city start
doing their own research? After all it's their street.
After talking to one of the two licensed surveyors in
PWE about this, he said I've learned something important from this, these requirements went into place before there were GPS or COH monuments tied to the Texas Co-ordinate system and I was still a teenager. Wonders never cease. I think the short answer is treat it just like a new subdivision plat and charge you client accordingly remembering that it may need revisions in three or four months when it gets back to you with even more requirements. Until next time when the ever-present government B.S. (BEAUREAUCRATIC STALL) technique draws our attention. by Bud Thompson, editor & web master ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ More on platting coming......new ordinances frequently will add to your "frustration" and "aggravation factors". Here we go again...........now the County P.I.D. is in the act. Well folks it has become abundantly clear that the slow down in the economy is giving Planners at the County and City way too much time to review plats. Have you had you grammar marked up on a plat yet. Well prepare yourself for it. Since the traffic count for plats has dropped from 150-175 per two week period down to about 40, these diligent employees have more than enough time to review the plats with the utmost care (magnifying glass in hand the proceed to uncover even the slightest imperfections. Notes we have used for years without comment are now suddenly a violation of good grammar and will require changes to the plat, prior to recording. Redundancy will not be tolerated, even if a direct quote of their note. It appears that the County HCPID has finally got into the act now and they don't like the City of Houston Note: (This I got directly from the City of Houston Web site years ago before they stopped being helpful. You may be able to get it these days if you can navigate the site to find it.) "FURTHER, Owners do hereby covenant and agree that all of the property within the boundaries of this plat and adjacent to any drainage easement, ditch, gully, creek or natural drainage way is hereby restricted to keep such drainage ways and easements clear of fences, buildings, planting and other obstructions to the operations and maintenance of the drainage facility and that such abutting property shall not be permitted to drain directly into this easement except by means of an approved drainage structure." The redline markup I received today requires "is hereby" to be changed to "shall hereby be". C'mon, when will common sense kick in? We now have planners playing lawyer? It's bad enough when they critique drafting or even worse, they want to practice surveying without a license but now they become the grammar police ! Let's take another tack on the course to total domination by government employees. Have you noticed the tangent of requiring the recording information of streets and county roads and even Interstates. The one I got today wants the recording information for Stuebner-Airline Drive, which is a half mile from my plat and not an adjoiner. One more item on this one, I checked fourteen other plats along Stuebner-Airline from FM 2920 to Louetta. Guess what. None of them, not even one had the recording information on them for Stuebner-Airline and they were direct adjoiners. Why is it, that the City of
Houston Planning & Development Department and Harris County PID can NOT get on
the same page? Kind of reminds me of the FBI and the CIA. They don't play well
with others and are territorial. The "FURTHER..." note above is a perfect
example. Since I learned growing up to always offer a solution and not just
complain about the situation, no matter how good it feels to vent, I pose a
solution. FIRE a few of these planners to even the work load out so they don't
have all that time on their hands OR require them to attend continuing education
courses that would teach them some simple cures for these ills that drive us
crazy. Some consistency between the City and County would be welcome but some
fairness and common sense would be awesome. Until next time when the ever-present government B.S. (BEAUREAUCRATIC STALL) technique draws our attention. by Bud
Thompson, editor & web master Which came first the Chicken or the Egg? More B.S. (BEAUREAUCRATIC STALL) from the City of Houston Planning & Development. Ok gang, here is the latest mind numbing from the City of Houston and their ever amazing lack of foresight and common sense. Scenario: As a part of the Plat submittal process, sometimes we must apply for a variance and perform the "Public Notice" steps. For this the City of Houston has a guide which you may download. This is a twelve page PDF document. On page 3 under photos you are required to furnish "Photos submitted electronically of each sign taken from the adjacent right-of-way (as a citizen would see the sign from a parked vehicle in front of the property) must be attached to DRC application or emailed no later than the date of the sign posting deadline. Signs depicted in the photograph should be legible and location of the sign on the property should be apparent." The sign posting deadline is detailed in Section 42-83 (b) below;
Sec. 42-83. Notification of applications for variance or special exception.
(a) The director shall give the notice required by subsections
42-81(g) and 42-82(f) of this Code by:
(1) Either:
a. Mailing a letter, first class mail, postage paid, to the owners of
all lots or tracts that are within 250 feet of the boundary of the
general plan, subdivision plat or development plat, as shown on the most
recently approved ad valorem tax rolls of the city not less than the
seventh day before the first meeting at which the commission will first
consider the application; or
b. By causing the information to be readily available to the public in
an electronic format* and
(2) By letter mailed first class mail, postage paid, or by electronic
mail message to each neighborhood association registered with defined
boundaries with the department in whose area the general plan or plat is
located as soon as reasonably possible before the first meeting at which
the commission will consider the application.
(b) The applicant shall give the notice required by subsections
42-81(g) and 42-82(f) of this Code by posting at least one sign on the
property that is the subject of the general plan or plat before
the tenth day before the date of the meeting at which the commission
will first consider the application. A sign shall face each
public right-of-way bordering the site, provided, however, that if more
than four signs would be required to be posted, the applicant may
request the director to approve an alternative number and location of
signs. The director shall approve an alternative to the number and
location of signs required by this subsection in excess of four upon
determining that the alternative will provide maximum visibility and
obtain the objectives of this section without unduly burdening the
applicant. Each sign shall be a minimum of four by eight feet in size
and shall be posted no more than 15 feet from the public right-of-way.
The lettering on the sign shall be legible from the public right-of-way.
The applicant shall use reasonable efforts to maintain each required
sign on the site until the close of the meeting at which the commission
acts on the application. The sign shall provide the following
information:
(1) The application number of the plat and the fact that a variance or
special exception is being requested;
(2) The date, time, and place of the meeting at which the commission
will first consider the application;
(3) A telephone number of the applicant to call for additional
information; and
(4) A department telephone number to call for additional information.
Hang in there, it get's better. It's important that you realize that 10 days before the meeting of the commission is the deadline date for Plat Submittal.
One of the largest pieces of text on the sign (pictured above from the guide) is the "PROPOSED SUBDIVISION NAME (Ref.#)". No problem, you say. When do you get the Ref.# ? It's not a trick question. As Alex Trebek would say, "The answer is..." at the time of plat submittal. Ok, so this begs the question, how do I put the reference number on the sign, take a picture of it and submit as a part of the plat application submittal, before I get the reference number, if the reference number is only supplied at the time of plat application submittal? Leave it to the City of Houston to make an ordinance that can not be followed. At the very best, the sign can be constructed and erected on the Friday before plat submittal, submit the plat immediately WITHOUT the photos and then email the photos to a planner or the PCAGENDA and hope and pray that it gets attached to the correct plat application? After all if the sign is not "maintained" your plat will be deferred. Which means you stand a chance of losing your application fees and will have to go through this again. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A few questions regarding the Platting process (a little food for thought): I recently attended a City of Houston Planning Commission meeting and met some old friends who share some of the same problems with regards to the City Planning and Development Department we all do, it seems. Other Surveyors in attendance at the meeting three that will remain nameless since I didn't clear it with them first. I have talked with other surveyors over the past year or two about platting problems and they too feel the system has become a challenge, at the very least. First I must qualify these statements and concerns. Like is says at the top of the page, "editorials are not necessarily the view of all the members". In fact, I can think of at least one person in the chapter that would never agree with me on anything, so I'll let the chips fall where they may. I know the smaller surveying firms, you know the companies that don't have at least two or three people dedicated full-time to platting, can identify with most of the following. I notice that more and more surveyors are deciding NOT to perform platting due to the overwhelming complexity and difficulty in dealing with the planning and development department. First a few questions to get you thinking. Have you ever submitted a plat and the first comments come back with, what I would call, drafting comments? (change this line type, this font, this format) I guess since there is a lack of standards it's up to the individual reviewer to make these comments. I had no idea there was a drafting police. You would think they had plenty of things to concentrate on other than drafting opinions. Perhaps I missed that in Chapter 42. Have you submitted a Preliminary, got required changes on a markup and submitted a final and received comments that require you to change back the original submittal? Huh? Different reviewer? Change of mind? Making busy work for surveyors? Have you received an email or phone call right after your normal business hours that require changes in your submittal due by 8 a.m. the next day "or your plat will be deferred"? (sounds like a veiled threat, doesn't it?) Usually this will be something related to title commitment/city planning letter maybe even a drafting change or simple typo. We all know when most Title companies open and it's not 7 a.m. Have you noticed the Planning Dept. has been force feeding us new ordinances on a regular basis over the past two years? Have you noticed on your CPC-101 that even after you have submitted the plat for final approval, and made the required revisions, the CPC-101 still has the same comments? Some of my favorites are:
"049.2 Subdivision plat must include State
Plane Coordinates in NAD83; and NAVD 1988 with 2001 adjustment."
"063. All appropriate engineering and
surveying data shall be shown. (42 & 44)"
"064. Provide all dedication
acknowledgements and certificates on the face of the plat.(42 & 44)" "204. Provide current title opinion in complete agreement with the plat dedication and addressed to the Planning & Development Department. (45)" This is required at every single step in the process. I wonder if they think it's really going to change during the platting process? This is a very poor practice to put this on the CPC-101 if it has been dealt with on the final submittal and approved. To me, being the simple person that I am, it makes me wonder if I missed something so I pour over the plat in detail to find nothing wrong and call the reviewer and ask about it, only to find it's that person's standard policy to put it on the CPC-101. Woah !! Individuality in a standardized form. Scary, I know. Have you platted along a county road? Was it a prescriptive rights road? Did you have to educate the reviewer in what a "prescriptive easement" is and I had my best laugh this year after a two page explanation of why there were no record documents of how the County got the road, the reply was simply "please provide deed record for county road". HELLO, anybody listening? It's not a lot better when bordering a city street. They own it but we have to prove it to them. Do you get the feeling we're the source of their GIS program? There are many concerns about the functionality of the planning and development process, including the apparent lack of seasoned employees. I recently asked a reviewer how long she had been at the city and could not get an answer. It seems surveyors have a bad reputation for not returning calls. Ever tried to contact a planner by phone? It's best to make the pilgrimage to the kingdom of the six floor and wait patiently, as long as it takes, for the "Planner of the Day". I have often wondered if this is a reward or a punishment for the planner? Do you think City Council is aware of how many plats do not get processed through the system due to mis-management and poorly trained or seasoned personnel? Imagine this situation, your plat is recommended for approval by the planning department, all your issues have been dealt with and politics at the Planning Commission deals you plat the death blow. They choose not to approve it, against recommendation from planning and legal departments. Ouch. Most of us have clients that do not understand, nor do they want to, the platting process, but they do expect us to deliver a recorded plat in a reasonable time for a fair price. Most want a lump sum price. If you have a crystal ball or you can borrow your daughter's Ouigi Board or the eight ball with answers, you might be able to predict what they will throw at you during the platting process with the exception of a new ordinance dealing with park space or some other thing. The platting process, for those of us without a full-time dedicated plat team, is fraught with many pitfalls.
Three last questions: We're back online:
No, your computer is fine
the web site was just in decay and languishing in apathy. It's
been a while since I've been able to spend any time on the web
site, but now I'm back on the job. As some of you probably know, I
had to take a sabbatical from the pleasures of managing the
Chapter 9 web site for a while due to a bout of official duties
at the State level. A little history of our web site is in order
since it's getting ready to have a face lift and a major
overhaul. The Chapter 9 web site was initiated by the chapter ten
years ago. At the time Larry Smith commissioned Steven Markham to
get it going. At the time both worked for P.B.S. & J. The
template was borrowed from Chapter 6 (Beaumont) and their man of
many talents Richard Worthey. The Domain (TSPS-9.ORG) was
registered under the name of PBS&J and Steven Markham was the
original web master. Not too long after, in a moment of weakness,
I was volunteered to replace Steven and took over his duties. I
maintained the web site until my state duties started taking a
majority of my off-duty hours and I asked to be replaced. Bob
Terry and then Rob Hertwig managed the web site. Two men with a
great deal of work to do on any normal day. Due to their
overwhelming work load the web site had taken a back seat to
their other duties. There are only so many hours in a day. If you have pertinent information about TSPS events, schedules or data, feel free to email it to me and I'll review it and put it on the appropriate page. Thanks for you patience and I'll be seeing you at the next dinner meeting. Hang in there, we have a ways to go. by Bud Thompson, web master To
send Email to the webmaster, click on the icon:
|