That's easy...the same width as the color orange.?ÿ Duh!
I'm thinking 29'
This appears to be a 29-foot wide strip which is widening the original easement from 20 feet to 49 feet and they only want to pay for the area of the new strip.?ÿ So the total width of easement area will be 49 feet.
I should note that there is a clear 20' right of way half width width that previously existed, and this document is specifically an easement for sidewalk. I can see this description being 49 feet plus the 20 feet, or 49 feet less the 20 feet.?ÿ ?ÿ
The road centerline is a section line, well monumented then and now.
The Twist. The document also includes this exhibit map:
The R/W half width for the subdivision to the north is 53 feet, no doubt.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Assuming the grantors own to the section line in fee, Then moving west from the section line you say there is 20' of ROW and the 20' of permanent easement shown on your exhibit.This leaves another 9' of easement granted by this document. Allthough this easement overlaps the 20' permanent easement shown on the exhibit.
Or someone fat fingered the 9 when they meant to type a 0 and the exhibit properly shows the easement being granted.
I have seen plenty examples of adding a five-foot strip to an existing road ROW by describing it as a strip 30-feet wide, less the east 25 feet thereof.
Overall R/W will now be 49' (the E 49') assuming the excluded E 20' was already R/W.?ÿ The width of the described is 29'.?ÿ?ÿ
So...
While everyone says 29', I have seen more descriptions than I like where the easement is created by placing the words "The East XX feet of..." and then on goes the description. And, what happens here can be the result. If so, the intention is that the easement is 49' wide.
Certainly there is some ambiguity. Generally, the picture becomes clear from evidence on the ground AND some sort of title research. Generally, if the parent parcel includes, "...except the East 20 feet." than I would say the easement is 49' wide.?ÿ
Also, why would they run an access easement inside the property by 20 feet and not on the property line?
I can hear that tortured description screaming from here.
No one seems to be much impressed by the "20' easement" notation on the exhibit map.?ÿ?ÿ
In my opinion the 20' easement on the exhibit is the 20' wide exception in the description, but I would have to research the title line to really see what's happening.
@norman-oklahoma I noticed it then got confused and thought it was for a different 20' easement.
29' but that's a wide sidewalk
In the OP where it notes the purpose of the easement, it mentions a sidewalk and any contouring of the soil required, etc.?ÿ This could be an area where the road and planned sidewalk are significantly lower than the adjacent lawn.?ÿ Rather than install a retaining wall they may be creating a tolerable grade from the sidewalk out into the adjacent lawn.
This could be an area where the road and planned sidewalk are significantly lower than the adjacent lawn.
29' but that's a wide sidewalk
The sidewalk winds through a stand of trees. There is a Junior High School just off picture to the left.
No one seems to be much impressed by the "20' easement" notation on the exhibit map.?ÿ?ÿ
Well, I gave my answer off the OP, even though it comes after your exhibit in the timeline of the thread. I suppose that if a description does not stand alone, it could be considered invalid. I have had one or two that perhaps could have been considered that.
I have never run into a surveyor that simply said, "No, that is invalid." Everyone seems to give the old college try and disclaim it on the record.
@norman-oklahoma and rules for construing descriptions in Oregon says:
ORS 93.31
(6) When the description refers to a map, and that reference is inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them, if it appears that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise the map is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.
Jp
?ÿ
No one seems to be much impressed by the "20' easement" notation on the exhibit map.?ÿ?ÿ
I could be. The exhibit seems to indicate the exception is a permanent easement meaning it is not needed in this easement. So the road already has 40 before the 49? Makes sense because the RW is 40 to the south and 53 to the north. That's one way to look at it. Did the SW take 9 ft to the south??ÿ
When the description refers to a map, and that reference is inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them, if it appears that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise the map is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.
That passage is on both sides of this question. Nevertheless, thanks for posting it.?ÿ
