Page 10 - Demo

FALL 20 2 4 10Continued from previous page2021-05-1259-00SLSVThe complainant made the following allegations: %u2022 Survey work performed by the respondent, a licensed land surveyor, was wrong and based on the opinion of another survey firm. The work was not defensible causing the complainant great expense and effort due to the error. %u2022 That the respondent changed two of the property corner caps on two of the six corners they installed. %u2022 That all the corners set by the respondent are in the wrong locations and are not consistent with their survey map, the county original recorded survey map or the survey provided by the other survey firm. %u2022 That the respondent performed a boundary and topographic survey for the complainant. Although the survey map was titled %u201cTopographic Boundary for%u2026%u201d monuments were set, but the survey was not recorded. %u2022 That the survey did not meet minimum requirements of Chapter 58.09 RCW or Chapter 332-130 WAC. The complainant contacted the respondent and indicated something %u201cdoes not look right.%u201d %u2022 That the respondent returned to the field to attempt to understand the complaint and to investigate. Evidence shows that the respondent did record a survey of the subject property showing the latest site conditions. There was no clear and convincing evidence the respondent performed an erroneous survey; therefore, the case was closed with no further action.2023-01-0044-00LSVAn investigation was opened based on a complaint filed over a disagreement from the respondent%u2019s survey and the placement of a 4-foot easement over the entire length of the complainant%u2019s property upon which a property owner parked their car. %u2022 The respondent did perform a survey of the property adjoining the complainant to the south for the purpose of subdividing the property and recorded it with the appropriate auditor%u2019s office. %u2022 The survey clearly shows both four-foot driveway easements along with an 8-foot joint maintenance agreement over the entire length of the properties together with their recording reference numbers. Respondent provided copies of the recorded subdivision, along with copies of the driveway easements and the joint maintenance agreement. %u2022 Both driveway easement recordings contain language thatthe easement covers the entire length of the land, is for a common or community driveway and is a covenant running with the land. Both documents were recorded in 1951.%u2022 The common maintenance agreement was recorded in 1985 and signed by the complainant. It covers the entire length of the properties. The documents are silent on whether the owners can park within the easement. %u2022 A professional land survey can only gather the evidence and place it on his survey. They do not make a judicial decision or provide an opinion as to the rights associated with the easements shown on a survey.There was no evidence the respondent violated any provisions of Chapter 18.43 RCW or Chapter 332-130 WAC regarding the placement of the easements on the Subdivision map. The case was closed with no further action.2023-01-0082-00LSVThe complaint made the following allegations: %u2022 A licensed professional land surveyor performed an erroneous survey of the property adjoining the complainant%u2019s property to the south which moved the complainant%u2019s boundaries. %u2022 The respondent performed a survey for the adjoining landowner to the south of the complainant and recorded it with the County Auditor. Said survey contained a narrative explaining the procedures used to survey the subject property. Investigation of the complaint observed the following: %u2022 The narrative stated that the centerline of a street was moved approximately 4 feet to the south after the original plat was recorded (1882) and the excess created by the move was addressed by other surveys in multiple ways.%u2022 The respondent held the record distance from the north and did not distribute the excess among the lots causing the discrepancy. %u2022 The narrative contained a reference to a 1927 survey which distributed the excess proportionately amongst all the lots in the block and that that procedure was flawed because the excess created by the centerline of the street moving south occurred after the original plat was recorded. Said survey shows one of the monuments set in 1927 at 1.71 feet south of the boundary established during his survey.%u2022 The initial response from the respondent stated: %u201cAfter examining deeds and occupation, I made the decision to hold plat dimensions from the north %u2026%u201d During the course of the investigation the respondent was asked to provide documentation proving the street was moved and or that additional right-of-way was acquired after the original plat was recorded which would support his decision to hold the plat distances. %u2022 The respondent produced a City of Seattle section map showing an %u201coriginal%u201d and current monumented centerline which differs by approximately 4 feet. The respondent did not produce any recorded documents proving the street centerline was officially moved or any additional right-ofway was acquired after the recording of the original plat.%u2022 The respondent believed that because two other surveys (1995 and 2002) also held plat distances from the north and that while proportionate measurement is generally Continued on next page