So, as it turns out, the ACTUAL included angle between the boundaries is 108.945 degrees, not 112.78 degrees. Using that angle, I now get 73.524' first point, 131.823' to the second point, for a width of the ROW measuring 58.299'.
Do I assume correctly that in such situations, you'd hold actual measurements rather than those from an "ancient" survey, done in the office?
I can duplicate your numbers by changing the bearing from N52?ø 47'E to approximately N48?ø 56' 42"E.?ÿ Are you basing this on monuments at the road ROW and 2k feet SW, or what?
@bill93?ÿ
The bearing of the 80' segment is actually S55-55-16 East, and the bearing from the point 2k sw to the corner is N53-01-28. These come from COGO from my survey. The dilemma is that the original survey, including the description of the ROW shows otherwise. So do you use the described (but inaccurate) numbers, or the "real" numbers?
You use any monuments that seem original. You assume bearings on a plat are all relative to some arbitrarily chosen reference that isn't actual north, unless the plat explicitly gives another basis of bearings.
When nothing fits, you look for obvious copy errors, like the one I mentioned in arecent thread where 201.1 ft measures to be 210.1 ft.
And when nothing makes sense, you and your adjoiner sit down and decide what's a reasonable solution.
