Heck just do this and get it over with:
?ÿ
I hate doing this, but if it makes the division sail through then...??.
Got one comment back from the regulators on the entire project.?ÿ
@a-harris You actually show two sets of bearings for the same line?
We do this routinely if there is adequate space on the plat and the verbiage for two descriptions use the same line but in opposite directions. Seems to keep the semi-ignorant more content and takes only a few seconds of drafting time.
Screw descriptions all together.
Just require a map be recorded, and refer to that.
Works for subdivisions.
I hear you, but sometimes there isn't a path to do a subdivision and individual descriptions are required for each parcel. Of course adjacent parcels will have bearings going different directions, there isn't anyway around it. I'm not an advocate, but the parcels I end up doing this for are large tracts so there is normally room to do it.
@mark-mayer The line I quote most often "shakin it boss, shakin it."
Note: Bearings shown may be reciprocals.
N
Note: Bearings shown may be reciprocals.
"Reciprocals" is not going to explain it to anyone who didn't already understand.
OK, but it would be FUN explaining the note!
N
Oh I understand. We survey more BM&B lots then subdivision lots in my area. I am just saying at some point it would be kinda cool to say: The description contained in this Liber / Page is now this MAP. Then form then on the parcel is referred to that MAP. If you think about it, that is what happens when we do an assessor's plat. And I guess that would be the rub, everyone in a new assessor's plat signs off on that plat, thus making the lots on the map legal. If I did a map for a M&B description, there would be the potential to still have overlaps & gaps with the adjoiners, so it the MAP still the lot? Then again, maybe not. Who knows - it has been a looong Monday and my head hurts. Beer:30.
