Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contractor asks Union Bridge council to allow asphalt in driveway easement; staff flags deed limits
Summary
A contractor seeking to keep asphalt in an easement at 4714 Ladensburg Road was told the deed’s language likely prevents simply granting permission; town staff will research options including selling a strip, drafting a revised deed or requiring the owner to remove the pavement.
Tim Wright, who identified himself as Tim Wright of Sand Creek Contracting, told the Union Bridge Town Council that asphalt he installed over part of a recorded easement at 4714 Ladensburg Road is creating problems for a pending sale and asked the town to grant permission for the paving to remain.
The request was met with concern from town staff and council members because the deed of easement appears to limit the easement’s purpose to ingress and egress. A town staff member pointed to clause 4 of the recorded deed, saying the language “says the grantee will not use or improve the easement area unless access to Ladysburg Road is denied at the existing driveway,” and that the way the deed is written likely prevents simply granting permission for pavement inside the easement.
Why it matters: Easement language defines what property uses the town and grantee can allow. If the recorded deed restricts improvements to the easement unless certain conditions are met, the town could face title issues or legal challenges if it authorizes a permanent pavement without a formal amendment.
Council discussed a set of possible solutions rather than taking immediate action. Options the council and staff raised included selling the small strip of land to the property owner, preparing a new or amended easement deed, keeping the easement while granting a specific, recorded permission, or requiring the owner to remove or cut off the paved portion. Staff said preparing deed changes or other legal work would carry a cost and suggested the property owner or buyer would likely need to reimburse the town and sign any indemnity or cost-recovery agreement.
Tim Wright described the situation to the council: “It shows the easement on the plat. I turned the plat in … that piece of property belongs to the town,” and explained the paved area overlaps the easement by only a few feet in places. Town staff and a council member reviewed the recorded language in detail and repeatedly said the issue hinges on the precise deed wording.
Next steps: A town staff member told the council they would research legal options and provide a recommendation and an estimated cost by the end of the week; the clerk asked that no documents be signed until that research is complete. The council did not vote on the request at the meeting and directed staff to return with options, a cost estimate, and recommended wording if an amendment is feasible.
Context and background: The issue arose when the owner attempted to sell the house and a title search identified pavement in the easement. Council members described the driveway and previous concrete work that dates back decades and said portions of the easement had been used historically but that historical use does not automatically permit improvements under the recorded deed language.
The council’s procedural position: No formal approval was given; staff will research whether a sale of the parcel, an amended deed, or a written recorded permission is the appropriate route. If the town performs legal work at the owner’s request, staff indicated the owner would be expected to reimburse the town and sign the required indemnity or cost-recovery paperwork.
