Just a guess....but I'd wager that your survey is abutting another recorded one and the calls he wants you to change are so it will conform with the already recorded one.
I respond to requests like these by acknowledging the request in a cover letter and explaining why I chose not to make the change. No muss, no fuss (but no change, either).
Establish a baseline through the project and a POB on said baseline, then provide all distances in chains/links and deflection angles in mils...
The only superior evidence is that which you haven't yet found.
SellmanA, post: 444688, member: 8564 wrote: Establish a baseline through the project and a POB on said baseline, then provide all distances in chains/links and deflection angles in mils...
Just go metric. Radians will keep them up at night.
Most calculators can easily convert metric to feet and radians to degrees; I wanted to be a bit meaner than that 🙂
The only superior evidence is that which you haven't yet found.
Holy Cow, post: 444661, member: 50 wrote: [USER=2486]@aliquot[/USER]
I was referring to new descriptions prepared by the signing surveyor. A simple four-sided tract, for example, shouldn't confuse anyone. But, writing the description with a bearing going south and east suggests your labeling on the plat should read identically (south and east) to what you put in the description, not backwards (north and west). To label them willy nilly is sloppy.
I see what you mean, where I work a plat and a meets and bounds description are mutuly exclusive. In other words, either the legal description remains unchanged after the survey, or the new description is a reference to the plat. I would never produce a survey and a new metes and bounds description, but if you were to-do that it would make no sense for the bearings not to match.