Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears hours-long dispute over a recorded roadway easement on Lawndale Lane; staff told to try renegotiation
Summary
Property owners and city counsel debated a 60-foot recorded roadway easement that residents say was intended for future subdivision; council directed staff to attempt renegotiation among the parties but took no formal decision to vacate or alter the easement.
Property owners, attorneys and city officials spent more than an hour Wednesday discussing a recorded 60-foot roadway easement along Lawndale Lane that neighbors say has functioned as a shared driveway for decades.
City counsel told the council the easement on title was drafted and recorded as a roadway easement (not a private driveway) and that the instrument does not spell out exactly where within the 60-foot strip a paved surface must be located. That ambiguity has left multiple property owners disputing maintenance, vehicle access and whether the easement contemplates a single 12-foot surface or a wider public roadway.
Multiple residents and property owners — including Jason Duke, Randy Duke and Jona Duke — told council members the easement has been used and maintained by homeowners for years and said they face unequal burdens from commercial traffic and construction access tied to adjacent parcels. Attorneys for parties including TQ Farms and representatives for the property owners urged the council to consider practical solutions for access without imposing a costly rebuild.
City staff and the council discussed options including vacating the easement (which would remove the city from a role), leaving the recorded document as-is, or seeking a negotiated reformation among the affected owners that would clarify maintenance and construction responsibilities and, if necessary, create a new public right-of-way. City staff said the city’s authority is limited: the city cannot split the single recorded grantor, cannot unilaterally assign cost shares among private grantors, and would only become involved if the city had to enforce or construct improvements due to a grantor’s failure to maintain.
Counsel noted the easement language contemplates a 12-foot bituminous surface with two feet of gravel on each side “and the improvement shall include, but not be limited to” that description — language counsel said could be read as permitting a wider surface, though the instrument remains ambiguous about precise placement and sizing. The council also heard anecdotal historical testimony that the easement was originally intended to service possible future subdivision of adjacent property, a plan that did not then materialize.
After extensive public comment and legal discussion the council voted procedurally to remove the item from the table for discussion and then directed staff to attempt to renegotiate terms among the affected landowners and to report back. There was no vote to vacate, build or redesign the easement at the meeting.
City staff and the council recommended a mediated renegotiation among the affected parties to clarify (1) whether the improvement must be centered, (2) whether the surface may be widened, (3) who is legally responsible for construction and long-term maintenance, and (4) whether any lot lines or future plats should be modified to reflect a public roadway connection. Council members said they preferred a negotiated solution if the parties are willing, with city staff facilitating outreach. If parties do not agree, staff said the recorded easement controls and the city’s options would be limited to enforcing the recorded terms or pursuing a formal vacation or reformation process with legal review.
