PlaneSpotterJoe
Member
About 4 decades ago, a community called Brownstone was developed on land that was owned by a man who also owned some undeveloped land across the street from Brownstone. The undeveloped land was adjacent to a popular park that the residents of Brownstone and others in the area frequented. To specifically help the residents of Brownstone, the land owner gave them an easement across his undeveloped land to access the park more directly. This was also his selling point- buy a Brownstone townhome, and you have direct access to the park. In Brownstone's condo documents, the easement is described as a non-exclusive perpetual easement. The same easement is described in the plat for the vacant land that the easement crosses, and in both descriptions, Brownstone is named as the holder of the easement.
Fast forward a couple of decades, and the city contacted the owner of the undeveloped land to sign an agreement to construct a bridge over his land to effectively convert the easement from a dirt path to a aesthetically pleasing wooden deck in order to beautify the area. The agreement did not specify Brownstone by name, but suggested that they felt the easement was public access because one or more communities across the street had been using it. But the purpose of this agreement was to give the city permission to build the walkway at no expense to the owner of the land. He agreed and they proceeded.
Now fast forward another 15 years, and the land owner sold the vacant land to a developer who built several condos on the land, called Placid Lakes. After the completion of Placid Lakes, the easement was rebuilt by the city. Shortly thereafter, the city went directly to Brownstone (without including anyone from the management or BOD from Placid Lakes), to sign an agreement that the city would make the easement public use, perhaps officially. In return, the agreement released Brownstone of all liability for anything that could happen on the easement, and that the city would maintain the walkway at no cost to Brownstone. They agreed.
Now fast forward another 17 years to today- Placid Lakes' property around the easement is suffering damages nearly every sunny day. It was not entirely clear why grass was dying until cameras were installed. There were also No Trespassing and Video Recording signs installed prior to the cameras, but went ignored. The grass is being abused by the public that walks off the easement and effectively trespasses onto Placid Lakes property. Bicycles are chained to the outside of the easement walkway on Placid Lakes' property. People walk over the grass owned by Placid Lakes to climb under the railing of the easement deck to access it. Children walk on the railing of the easement deck putting their safety at risk. People ride their bicycles onto Placid Lakes property as a shortcut to the easement, part of which crosses Placid Lakes' driveway. People drive onto Placid Lakes' property to park and wait to pick up people who don't want to walk all the way out to the street to be picked up, or to walk home across the street. And some ill-informed residents of Brownstone insist that they can chain their bikes and walk anywhere they want around the easement on Placid Lakes' property because they think they own the land- they think the Private Property signs pertain to Brownstone, and not Placid Lakes who installed the signs! Because Brownstone's condo documents state that they hold an easement they believe this to be the case, but at the same time they aren't even aware of the City's decades-later agreement with their association about the easement being made public in exchange for releasing them of all effective responsibilities concerning the easement. The city and police were not aware of the extent of the problems Placid Lakes suffered until presented with video evidence of the violations, but of course they were defensive and tried to minimize what the response would be. For example, the police chief asking if Placid Lakes would like them to arrest people walking in their grass. Or being ill informed himself, thinking the City owned the land under the easement.
As far as I know, the city has the burden to solve these problems without impact to the land owner (in this case, Placid Lakes). But to what extent is this true? And who is liable if anyone gets hurt on or off the easement who doesn't necessarily live in Placid Lakes (i.e. hurt on the easement or hurt when trespassing, inadvertently or otherwise)? Is Brownstone liable for anything even with the agreement with the City? Is the City also liable if, for example, a child walking on the railing falls off and breaks his or her neck? And the main question for this forum- Was it acceptable for the City to approach Brownstone to make an agreement to allow the public to use the easement without involving Placid Lakes in any discussions or for the signing of the agreement itself? The intent of the easement was for one community to have access to the park, but the city decided on their own terms that it should be made public and did not discuss this with anyone from Placid Lakes. Placid Lakes doesn't mind if the public accesses the park directly using the easement, but it isn't clear how to solve any of these problems.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and your consideration for our concerns!
Fast forward a couple of decades, and the city contacted the owner of the undeveloped land to sign an agreement to construct a bridge over his land to effectively convert the easement from a dirt path to a aesthetically pleasing wooden deck in order to beautify the area. The agreement did not specify Brownstone by name, but suggested that they felt the easement was public access because one or more communities across the street had been using it. But the purpose of this agreement was to give the city permission to build the walkway at no expense to the owner of the land. He agreed and they proceeded.
Now fast forward another 15 years, and the land owner sold the vacant land to a developer who built several condos on the land, called Placid Lakes. After the completion of Placid Lakes, the easement was rebuilt by the city. Shortly thereafter, the city went directly to Brownstone (without including anyone from the management or BOD from Placid Lakes), to sign an agreement that the city would make the easement public use, perhaps officially. In return, the agreement released Brownstone of all liability for anything that could happen on the easement, and that the city would maintain the walkway at no cost to Brownstone. They agreed.
Now fast forward another 17 years to today- Placid Lakes' property around the easement is suffering damages nearly every sunny day. It was not entirely clear why grass was dying until cameras were installed. There were also No Trespassing and Video Recording signs installed prior to the cameras, but went ignored. The grass is being abused by the public that walks off the easement and effectively trespasses onto Placid Lakes property. Bicycles are chained to the outside of the easement walkway on Placid Lakes' property. People walk over the grass owned by Placid Lakes to climb under the railing of the easement deck to access it. Children walk on the railing of the easement deck putting their safety at risk. People ride their bicycles onto Placid Lakes property as a shortcut to the easement, part of which crosses Placid Lakes' driveway. People drive onto Placid Lakes' property to park and wait to pick up people who don't want to walk all the way out to the street to be picked up, or to walk home across the street. And some ill-informed residents of Brownstone insist that they can chain their bikes and walk anywhere they want around the easement on Placid Lakes' property because they think they own the land- they think the Private Property signs pertain to Brownstone, and not Placid Lakes who installed the signs! Because Brownstone's condo documents state that they hold an easement they believe this to be the case, but at the same time they aren't even aware of the City's decades-later agreement with their association about the easement being made public in exchange for releasing them of all effective responsibilities concerning the easement. The city and police were not aware of the extent of the problems Placid Lakes suffered until presented with video evidence of the violations, but of course they were defensive and tried to minimize what the response would be. For example, the police chief asking if Placid Lakes would like them to arrest people walking in their grass. Or being ill informed himself, thinking the City owned the land under the easement.
As far as I know, the city has the burden to solve these problems without impact to the land owner (in this case, Placid Lakes). But to what extent is this true? And who is liable if anyone gets hurt on or off the easement who doesn't necessarily live in Placid Lakes (i.e. hurt on the easement or hurt when trespassing, inadvertently or otherwise)? Is Brownstone liable for anything even with the agreement with the City? Is the City also liable if, for example, a child walking on the railing falls off and breaks his or her neck? And the main question for this forum- Was it acceptable for the City to approach Brownstone to make an agreement to allow the public to use the easement without involving Placid Lakes in any discussions or for the signing of the agreement itself? The intent of the easement was for one community to have access to the park, but the city decided on their own terms that it should be made public and did not discuss this with anyone from Placid Lakes. Placid Lakes doesn't mind if the public accesses the park directly using the easement, but it isn't clear how to solve any of these problems.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and your consideration for our concerns!
