HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PWS 6/11/2008
Page 10f2
HOPKINS Steve
From: MOORHEAD Chris
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 200812:55 PM
. To: Kent Baker
Cc: ERNST Dennis; HOPKINS Steve
Subject: RE: Mike Miller Partition, private sewer easements
.'1'
Hi Kent,
First, about the easement for the sewer line to TL 6900, I agree it might be unfair to require an easement where one might
never have existed in the past. But being that this is the creation of a Lot that can be sold to the Public, there is no way
that the City can sign off on, a plat creating that Lot when it is known that there is a private sewer line running through it
with no easement to the sewer line's owner. That would only open up the City to a potential lawsuit later down the line
when that sewer line may fail, or if the new owner wants to move it, or might even dig it up unknowingly and then there is
a dispute over who's line it is and who pays for it.
Second, about the other easement, like we discussed before, we don't want to have a statement on the plat that assigns
the cost of repairs and maintenance to the owners of TL's 6900 and 7000 without a signed acceptance from them on the
plat too. But as you broughfto my attention, the easement recorded in Reel 1 00 has almost those same assignments,
just doesn't specify the exact location of the easement. Instead of putting on the plat that line about assignment of cost,
why not just show the 5' wide easements and refer to the wording and conditions of this existing easement to "define the
rights of the Grantors and Grantees of the easements", They would technically be the heirs and assigns of the original
1953 easement Grantors and Grantees, and I think it can be rationally construed that this same wording of the easement
could be applied to TL 6900 as well. You could also just note that the 2 private sanitary sewer easements just update the
original Reel 100 easement by correcting the blanket easement by specifying the exact locations of the 2 easements.
You also said Mike wants to negotiate the easement with the neighbor, possibly including relocation, and that would
probably be the best course to solve the easement issues. You probably know as well as I that an easement by a
recorded separate document is the way that this kind of issue should tiave been handled from the start, and it would have
made it a lot easier for us (the City) to accept if it was referred to as "5.0' wide private sanitary sewer easement per
reception number 2008-XXXXX".
I suggest that you contact the planner, Steve Hopkins (as CC'd on this email) to request an extension of the subdivision
final application if Mike is going to try to negotiate an easement and you are going to wait until that is done to submit the
~& .
The only other comments on the plat I had were:
. on the Narrative, line 3, the deed listed there should be 2007-080654
. On the detail map, at the northeast corner, dimension the encroachment of the East fence from where it crosses
the Nortnproperly line to where it crosses the East properly line .
. The county surveyor's office comment #3 wanted a note regarding adjoiner's r.ights which I don't see. I would
suggest a note 5 on sheet 1 reading "POTENTIAL ADJOINER'S RIGHTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BEFORE
CHANGES IN OCCUPANCYBEYOND EXISTING FENCES AS.SHOWN HEREON."
Give me a call if you have any questions or to give me an idea of how you want to proceed further with those easements.
Thanks, Chris
Chris Moorhead, PLS
Surveyor, City of Springfield Public Works
225 Fifth StreeC Springfield, Oregon 97477
Tel. 541-736-1011
Fax 541-726-3781
rmnnrhpi'lrlliiJci.sQ/ingfieldor. us
From: Kent Baker [mailto:kentbaker@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 6:07 PM
To: MOORHEAD Chris
6/11/2008
Page 2 of2
Subject: Miller Partition
~~ .
Mike doesn't have a problem with granting a new easement over the existing sewer line to Tax Lot #7000 because it is
replacing the old easement with no specified location. He wants to include the same verbiage as the old easement
pertaining to maintenance.
He does have issues with the city telling him that he has to create an easement for Tax Lot #6900. If he does not create
this easement, the city holds up his partition. This is far from Jare because it is something he had no control over Why
doesn't the city require the owner of Tax Lot #6900 to move the line? I understand this could be an unreasonable request,
but so is holding up the partition on this issue. .
Mike would like to negotiate this easement with the neighbor, so he can prepare the easement with his terms
concerning maintenance and usage, and possibly relocation. I think the city is over stepping its' bounds here, Something
to think about.
Kent Baker
6/11/2008