Laserfiche WebLink
January 9, 1990 <br />Mr. Mark S. Banwart <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Environmental #3: There seems to be a persistent "rumor" that surveyors <br />some sort of "magic" that enables them to see underground. We don't.. Such <br />can only be obtained from those who have knowledge of such things being ti <br />however, show "evidence" of there being such things - said evidence <br />stand pipes and the like. Also, in this day and age of lawsuits over haza] <br />and the like, we are quite concerned about assuming that sort of liabilit~ <br />naturally evolve if we are required to show such things that are out of <br />exq3ertise. We recommend you drop this item entirely from the Certificate Oi <br />make this "additional information" to be given by the owner/deve]oF <br />appl i cat i on. <br /> <br />Environmental, ~4: If these wetlands or bluff lines are o__n the property, ~_~. <br />their location confirmed by the surveyor and shown on the Certificate? Th <br />have a check on the accuracy on the existing source maps - which are neces_~ <br />general in nature any~ray. Also, if these items are .off the property, ~,here w <br />"limit" over which the surveyor is free to ignore same? <br /> <br />Environmental, #5: See above. Are we not getting in an area here ~]ere th, <br />information is presented by the surveyor and others (builder?) determine <br />not there is to be such grading? It seems to me that that would usually be tl <br /> <br />House/Structures, #2: This statement, as is, is confusing. %5]at do <br />"within"? Wouldn't it be simpler to specify that all adjoining buildings <br />feet (for instance) of a property line be shown? Your office can then de <br />these structures meet set-backs (what about variances "of record"?) or not. <br /> <br />House/Structures, ~4: We recommend that the surveyor be required to <br />foundation "footprint" only. After all~ they are also submitting house plar~ <br />not? With all the detail being required, "clutter" on our drawings becomes <br />both for the drafter and the eventual user. <br /> <br />GENERAL: Are these regulations to apply to sewered lots ortly? Perhaps tr, <br />2.6 acres should usually be exempt unless the building inspection depart~ <br />potential Problems, and then they have the "option" to call for such a surve: <br /> <br />To include all the above information on large tracts will be ex-pensive. P~ <br />such cases, it would only be necessary to provide such information to the ha[ <br />so immediatel.v surrounding the proposed building? <br /> <br /> <br />