Heaven only knows what will happen if I discover the 50-foot lot to actually be 49.854 feet.
Overall total = 3
Dave Karoly, post: 441912, member: 94 wrote: Tell her it means there's no radialization there, a good thing.
On the same note, just a few days ago I got an email from a title reviewer telling me that my survey didn't close mathematically. I explained to her that my survey did in fact close and informed her that the bearings and distances noted Survey vs. Deed differed because of an error in the filed plan. My resolution to the filed plat error matched almost perfectly with the improvements along all lines of occupation. She told me that I had to revise my survey because it could not mathematically close because it did not match the filed plan exactly. When I told her that I would forward a lot closure report to her to prove my point, silence fell upon the land for a few seconds before she asked me what a lot closure report was and then proceeded to tell me it was meaningless and that my survey had to be revised to match the filed plan exactly. I went through 20 minutes of this on the phone with her before I had her transfer me up the food chain until I eventually got to speak with their staff Attorney and explained the bust in the filed plan. The Attorney then had the balls to ask me why I has wasting his time with this as it would not have been necessary if I had explained it to the reviewer. It's the never ending saga. It's really funny to see my staff stop what they are doing and look/listen when they sense a change in the tone of my voice. They love it when I try to take the time to educate the clueless.
Chris, thats funny!
Jim Frame, post: 441882, member: 10 wrote: And yet, their curve table only provides delta, radius and length -- no radial or tangent bearings.
A competently annotated map shows no radial bearings on tangent curves, and the radial bearing on every non-tangent curve.