Opinion ID: 1355008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the maps submitted

Text: The county commission also found the maps which accompanied the petition pursuant to W.Va.Code § 8-2-2 to be inadequate. The statute requires the submission of a map that shall be based upon an actual and accurate survey of the territory to be incorporated showing the courses, distances, and the area of the territory to be incorporated. W.Va.Code § 8-2-2. The objectors argue and the county commission apparently agreed that the methodology employed by the petitioners failed to comply with the statute since their engineer made no independent measurements on the ground, relying instead on existing maps. Mr. Harold White, a registered professional engineer under whose direction and supervision the maps were prepared, verified that the maps were based on an actual and accurate survey done by the United States Geological Survey as required by law and that the boundary of the territory to be incorporated was placed on the map under his direction. His verification was attached to the petition submitted to the county commission. He testified that in his judgment as a professional engineer an accurate and actual survey of the territory to be incorporated showing the courses and distances in the area of the territory to be incorporated was made by using the existing maps that we utilized and the actual maps of the territory as existed on the dates it was mapped of the courses and distances in effect, and our office survey placed upon the maps. He said after he was given an outline of the area sought to be incorporated, he scaled off coordinates, fed it through their computer, and traced it off showing the courses and distances that were printed out on the computer cards. Although Mr. White made no measurements on the ground himself, he relied on measurements made by the Corps of Engineers in 1966. When asked whether a property owner on or near the perimeter of the map could use the map he prepared and determine whether this property was within or without the boundaries of the proposed municipality, Mr. White stated that [F]rom the physical features shown on the map, if he can identify his property on the map, his residence, he can scale from the map and determine whether he is inside the corporate limits or not. He testified that this could be done with sufficient accuracy to determine whether he is in the area sought to be incorporated. He indicated that by plotting the courses and distances onto the photogrammetric map, an actual and accurate survey of the territory to be incorporated is created showing the courses, distances and the area of the territory to be incorporated. Robert L. Long, a civil engineer registered in the State of West Virginia, employed by the objectors to the proposed incorporation, testified regarding the sufficiency of the maps submitted with the petition for incorporation. He testified that he could run the lines shown on the map fairly close but not exactly because the map was not tied into permanent monuments on the ground. He indicated that the map should be tied into something on the ground. He admitted, however, that he also in his practice occasionally relies on metes and bounds surveys conducted by governmental authority in preparing a survey and that this practice is accurate. When asked whether the map was accurate even though it was incomplete in that it did not list the metes and bounds, he answered, That's right, it's very accurate. He further stated that it would be possibly not mandatory but desirable to have permanent markers at various points on the map to be considered proper. We feel that a requirement that actual ground measurement must be made would be in this case an unreasonable burden. The expense involved would effectively prohibit many groups of citizens from attempting to incorporate. The purpose of the map is to show with reasonable accuracy whose property is within the area to be incorporated so that the citizenry will have notice of the proposal and the hearing held on the proposal and to establish the parameters of the proposed city. The public would realize little, if any, benefit from expensive ground measurements. Any prospective benefits accruing to the public from such measurements are certainly outweighed by the unreasonable burden imposed on those citizens who wish to incorporate for self-government under the statute. A statute is to be interpreted in the light of the nature of its subject matter, the purpose of the legislature in passing it, and the conditions and circumstances under which the law making body must have known it would operate; and, upon these considerations, it will not be so interpreted as to make it impose unreasonable burdens, greatly disproportionate to the resultant public benefit, unless its terms are so explicit and positive as to preclude any other construction. Syl. pt. 5, Pond Creek Pocahontas Co. v. Alexander, 137 W.Va. 864, 74 S.E.2d 590 (1953), quoting syl. pt. 2, State v. Baltimore and Ohio Railway Co., 61 W.Va. 367, 56 S.E. 518 (1907). The statute, therefore, contemplates the existence of some actual and accurate survey which can serve as the starting point or base for the map to be submitted with the petition for incorporation. The legislature could have expressly required that ground measurements be made, but chose instead to require only that the maps be based upon an actual and accurate survey. The inescapable conclusion, considering the burdens, benefits and language of the statute, is that to plot courses and distances, as the petitioners did on the photogrammetric map, is to base the maps on actual and accurate survey as the statute requires. E. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations § 3.27d (rev. 3d ed. 1971) indicates that [i]f maps or surveys are required by statute, they are sufficient if they show to a reasonable certainty what land is included. Thus, if the incorporating petition and accompanying map, when viewed together, fairly apprise the public of the property involved, the description will be considered proper. See, e. g., People v. Ihde, 23 Ill.2d 63, 66, 177 N.E.2d 313, 315 (1961). The case at bar is very similar to In Re Incorporation of Town of Big Cabin, 132 Okl. 200, 270 P. 75 (1928). There the county surveyor testified that the map submitted with the petition for incorporation was based upon maps and field notes already on record in the county and that a complete survey of the proposed town was not made. The surveyor made an affidavit that the plat was correct, and his application was attached to the petition. The court held that this substantially complied with their statute considering the lack of evidence that anyone was misled or that anyone could not find out whether his property was in the area sought to be incorporated. The court found it sufficient if a surveyor can ascertain boundaries with a reasonable certainty. Similarly, in West v. West Virginia Fair Association, 97 W.Va. 10, 125 S.E. 353 (1924), a map submitted with an incorporation petition was held to be adequate, despite significant errors in metes and bounds, because no interested person or voter could be misled as to the general boundaries of the territories to be included. Description of municipal boundaries need not be construed with the same strictness as those descriptions necessary in deeds, mineral leases or mining permits. The duly-verified map makes a prima facie case of compliance with the statute. The Court finds that this method of using aerial photographs, actual field information and official United States Geological Survey maps in establishing the coordinate ground control points and courses, distances and acreages which appear on the maps, substantially complies with W.Va.Code § 8-2-2 and that the objectors have not met the burden of proving that the maps submitted and verified by Mr. White were inadequate. Therefore, the order of the commission declaring the maps inadequate is contrary to the evidence adduced in this case.