I certainly don't know the laws on this, but I would recommend talking to some of their lawyers who might have a higher level of knowledge on this specific topic. Keep in mind that you might have a powerline easement or get a powerline easement by a kind of eminent domain and have a right to condemn for it. The private property might have a different standing as they may have had to negotiate the acquisition of that property if it was not for the purpose of providing power to the general public. Maybe the fact that these two different types of holdings have a different legal standing. Think of it in terms of the fact that the people who are serviced by the powerlines have the right to have this easement in place to provide them the power.
Did that make sense?
I'm with those who would likely show it, label it as proposed easement, put some kind of note regarding intent, all being fully aware that the easement will not exist until it is formally transfered. They can deed it to themselves, which seems moronic, but it will work.
I've done land divisions wherein the owner needed an access/utility easement to the middle lot. He still owned everything, but he still completed the deed to himself so when he did sell it in a couple years - smooth sailing
The proposed easements, I presume, are for power transmission lines and/or facilities and not a drop service into a structure. As such, the power transmission easements are considered easements in gross as opposed to the typical appurtenant easement. Easements appurtenant have a servient property they encumber and a dominant property to which the easement is attached. Easements in gross are not in this category. They exist independent of the property they encumber and independent of the ownership of the property.
I expect that the power company is distinguishing the difference between the corporately owned property which may have other uses apart from the transmission line crossing it. They likely have a different tax structure for the facilities vs the real property holdings and need to differentiate the two.
Like others have stated, I'd want to make certain that I understand what it is they are attempting to accomplish and provide a service that meets those needs. I'd agree that simply showing some dashed lines on a survey drawing won't create the easements. If they're needing to know percentages of coverage or areas, I wouldn't leave those calculations up to the utility company to make.
JBS
I would not be too harsh in my judgement of others knowledge here Jim, there are many rules regarding Merger of Title that may or may not apply. Often, these easements are granted by the owners for transmission or use by third parties. Other interests could also apply. That's why i show them proposed, so they can get an actual easement.
As a couple others mentioned, this is a proper request. Easements in gross for utilities many times need to be re-conveyed with each re-finance or change in corporate structure or sale of the utility.
How to address odd request More information
I now know more than I did previously.
The request (more like a demand really) is coming from the city planner. He has looked on a tax photo and sees that there is a utility line that crosses the property. This is a huge shock of course since the property in question is a power substation.
Anyway, this jackleg seems to fancy himself a property attorney and he knows that if there is a line there has to be an easement. So he is unwilling to pass this along the chain until he sees that easement on a plat. (Insert face palm here.)
The only good thing seems to be that he apparently is willing to accept a "proposed" easement.
I so love dealing with planners.
Larry P
How to address odd request More information
I see 2 things here:
1.) Since it is lines coming from a substation there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of people that depend on that line crossing a piece of property to deliver them electricity. I can understand the need for an easement to benefit them.
However,
2.) Since it is a substation the same reasoning above should apply to the substation as well as the line. So maybe the entire lot should be covered over by a utility easement - NOT.
Now that you have all the details I think the planner should be told to take a hike. In my opinion, no easement is needed in this instance.
Larry
This story is the straw that broke the camel's back; I am now 100% certain that your local planning agencies recruit solely from a pool of potential employees who were fired elsewhere for incompetency.
Jim
Ha. I have shared only a small percentage of the stuff I've seen.
How routinely the tape recording device mysteriously gets turned off during meetings so certain things can be discussed without anyone else knowing.
How when something controversial might be discussed they have a "special" meeting not at the usual location and not at the usual time and without the need for notifying anyone in advance. Or how at some of those meetings things that had been previously approved were suddenly "unapproved". (No, there is no such thing as an unapproval process in the rules anywhere.)
How one planner tried to broker a deal between someone needing approval for a trailer park and one of the board members. The park was fine except he needed an evergreen buffer. One of the board members was in the nursery business. The planner tried to get the park owner to buy his trees for the buffer from the board member. Ok, not all that much wrong with that, right? Well except is was happening during the meeting while the park approval (or not) was being discussed. Did the nursery man recuse himself from the discussion or vote? Of course not.
How recently the planning board chairman told me they needed to make the rules easier for those who were exempt from the rules. When I pointed out that exempt meant that their rules did not apply he countered by telling me that everyone had to comply with the rules even those persons who were specifically exempt because "we don't interpret exempt as meaning the rules don't apply."
I could go on and on but you get the idea.
Larry P
Jim
I understand that you don't want to burn bridges.
By the sound of what your describing, I think it would be prudent to sic the grand jury on these issues. That is their job and they usually take it seriously.
How to address odd request More information
An easement for the benefit of customers of a corporation? Kinda the ultimate eminent domain easement. The people need it take anything you want!