Board issues warnings, dismissals across 10 complaint files; unlicensed drone/LiDAR complaint deferred for full review

The Tennessee Board of Land Surveyors considered 10 complaint files during its legal‑report segment and voted on recommended dispositions for nine of them. The board issued letters (warnings or instructions) in several cases, dismissed multiple complaints after expert review, and deferred one complaint — alleging an unlicensed company was offering drone‑based topographic and mapping services that may amount to surveying — for further consideration at the next meeting when the full board can be present.

Legal counsel presented each complaint, summarized expert findings where applicable, and made recommendations. The board accepted the legal recommendations in all nine decided matters by motion and voice vote. Those outcomes included letters of warning in cases where the expert found possible rule violations or where the licensee had self‑reported discipline in another state; letters of instruction (a milder reminder of technical requirements) where the matters were minor technical omissions; and dismissals where expert review found no violation.

Votes at a glance - Complaint 2025011191 (energy‑company pipeline survey matter): motion to issue a letter of warning — approved. Counsel’s report said the expert found technical issues with remote‑sensing documentation and recommended a warning rather than an instruction so the surveyor could demonstrate seriousness to clients. - Complaint 2025020721 (preliminary plat north‑arrow omission): motion to issue a letter of instruction — approved. Experts found a missing north‑arrow source note to be corrected before plat approval. - Complaint 2025024061 (subdivision feasibility / nonpayment dispute): motion to dismiss — approved. - Complaint 2025021781 (neighbor fence / billing dispute): motion to dismiss — approved. - Complaint 2025035431 (complex family subdivision billing dispute): motion to dismiss — approved. - Complaint 2025026821 (self‑reported Nevada discipline): motion to issue a letter of warning — approved. Respondent relinquished a Nevada license and paid fines; board applied Tennessee disciplinary authority by correspondence and issued a warning. - Complaints 2025029721 and 2025029741 (related matters about responsible‑charge and alleged unlicensed activity tied to an attempted business transfer): motions to issue letters of warning (against a licensee who signed plats during a short merger/transition period) and to dismiss 1 related older complaint — approved. - Complaint 2025033801 (allegation of alcohol while working): motion to send a letter of instruction encouraging professional conduct — approved. Board noted no evidence of malpractice or criminal conduct presented to the board and suggested the commenter call law enforcement if they sought criminal investigation. - Complaint 2025034961 (allegation that a private company offers drone‑based topographic and topo/TOPO products, LiDAR, point clouds, and “site survey with TOPO” on its website): the board voted to defer formal action until the next meeting, asking legal staff to re‑present the item when the full board — including an absent member — can participate. Counsel highlighted federal rulings in North Carolina and Mississippi that treated similar drone/topographic offerings as the practice of surveying when used for planning or boundary determination; the board requested time to consider whether Tennessee’s statute, TCA 62‑18‑1023, and existing enforcement practice require action. Counsel also noted the respondent had amended website language after the complaint was filed to add a statement that certified boundaries and elevation data would be supplied only in collaboration with a licensed surveyor.

Legal counsel said the board may request an expert technical review of the drone/LiDAR provider’s deliverables before the next meeting. The board instructed counsel to re‑place the item on the next agenda and to include the board’s discussion verbatim for public record. The board did not direct immediate enforcement, but several members expressed agreement that disclaimers on marketing materials do not exempt providers from Tennessee’s statutory definition of surveying if their deliverables function as topo, mapping or boundary work.

All finalized dispositions were adopted by voice vote; no roll‑call tallies were recorded in the minutes. For items the board dismissed or instructed, staff noted those dispositions are retained in the board’s file and could be relied on in future enforcement if similar problems recur.