View Single Post
Old 06-06-2017, 02:56 PM   #85
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,818
Thanks: 487
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
I'm not sure a ROW for public use purposes has a time limit.
Statistically speaking, I don't think it has a time limit either. It would not be to the state's benefit to put auto-expiration clauses on ROW grants, or similar exceptions based on future use potential.

However, like many things legal, events over time often cause things to be reevaluated and for parties to realize that language was not specific enough, other precedents or decisions in tangential lawsuits come into play, etc.

SD/LB has changed a lot in character over time. Look at some of the early buildings vs. later ones, it appears, to me, that it started as more of a simple/affordable community and morphed over time into one that contains more and more higher-valued properties. Some of those property owners may have built elsewhere or chosen to alter their plans had they anticipated a 30 year old dormant easement to suddenly be put to use. I am not saying that fully justifies the opposition, but it does impact things (IMO).

When we purchased in South Down (2006), I do not recall seeing any clauses, deed restrictions, etc. that mentioned this ROW existing and being earmarked for a public trail and associated fences to be built through the community. Should potential buyers have been made aware of how the common area property, and the community at large, could be impacted? Are there other precedents in similar circumstances?
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline   Reply With Quote