Our local municipality has recently stopped requiring Slope Easements for roadway cut slopes. They are still required for fill slopes.
Has anyone ever encountered this? Does it make sense to you?
IMHO easements are required for the maintenance of ALL slopes.
The true test will be when a diligent land owner comes out and stops work at the existing line or when they receive a letter from the land owners attorney with a bill for surface damages and materials theft..
Jim in AZ, post: 451854, member: 249 wrote: Our local municipality has recently stopped requiring Slope Easements for roadway cut slopes. They are still required for fill slopes.
Has anyone ever encountered this? Does it make sense to you?
IMHO easements are required for the maintenance of ALL slopes.
"That which is necessary for the operation and maintenance of the facility."
Seems to me the road is still encumbering the land owner. I would think there could be money to be made by the legal profession in your town.
Interesting I have never seen such a thing but it could make sense. Once the cut slope was cut, how could the property owner have an effect on it? All he could do would be reduce the height, or remove it. Unlike a fill slope that could be undermined with a vertical cut so the grantee would want to protect from that action. So with a temporary construction easement with the understanding that material was to be removed why would the grantee need the cut slope easement? Jp
Jp7191, post: 452001, member: 1617 wrote: Interesting I have never seen such a thing but it could make sense. Once the cut slope was cut, how could the property owner have an effect on it? All he could do would be reduce the height, or remove it. Unlike a fill slope that could be undermined with a vertical cut so the grantee would want to protect from that action. So with a temporary construction easement with the understanding that material was to be removed why would the grantee need the cut slope easement? Jp
"...why would the grantee need the cut slope easement?"
For maintenance purposes? The slope will begin to erode and slough off over time. Don't you think the municipality should have the legal right to maintain the slope?
Carson v. Gentner. Maintenence is presumed to be included. I do believe cut and fill slopes go beyond that, especially if they interfere with rights to lateral and adjacent support...
Jp7191, post: 452001, member: 1617 wrote: Interesting I have never seen such a thing but it could make sense. Once the cut slope was cut, how could the property owner have an effect on it? All he could do would be reduce the height, or remove it. Unlike a fill slope that could be undermined with a vertical cut so the grantee would want to protect from that action. So with a temporary construction easement with the understanding that material was to be removed why would the grantee need the cut slope easement? Jp
JP,
Slope easements have two purposes, at least. The primary purpose, in my point of view, is to convey the right of the grantee to encumber the grantor's property. The other is to protect the roadbed as you described. In theory, the grantor could re-grade their property in a way that turns the cut slope into a fill.
Jim in AZ, post: 451854, member: 249 wrote: Our local municipality has recently stopped requiring Slope Easements for roadway cut slopes. They are still required for fill slopes.
Has anyone ever encountered this? Does it make sense to you?
IMHO easements are required for the maintenance of ALL slopes.
Yes, that's SOP here, of course if the slope is steep then they will usually try and buy the extra ROW.
There seems to be a change in designing roads, with newer computer systems engineers will spend time making the slopes flatter especially in cut sections when they can.
Kinda a PITA when you stake them and each station is on a different slope, sometimes 20:1 or 15:1 or something like that.
Anyway it doesn't seem to make sense to capture an easement for those, and when they don't want to acquire ROW they seem to steepen everything up to make it fit inside.
I suppose it depends on the type of soils, a little grass seed on our more lush areas and the next year everything is solid, if the drainage is handled then no issues, in the more dry areas that won't work as well.
John Putnam, post: 452101, member: 1188 wrote: JP,
Slope easements have two purposes, at least. The primary purpose, in my point of view, is to convey the right of the grantee to encumber the grantor's property. The other is to protect the roadbed as you described. In theory, the grantor could re-grade their property in a way that turns the cut slope into a fill.
Makes since. In my mind a fill slope is more of a structural support for the road bed which needs to be protected. But you are right a cut slope could also be compromised by placing fill on it. I was just trying to reason like an engineer and answer the original question. I called out for it, I should know better than try to reason like an engineer :). Jp
MightyMoe, post: 452105, member: 700 wrote: Yes, that's SOP here, of course if the slope is steep then they will usually try and buy the extra ROW.
There seems to be a change in designing roads, with newer computer systems engineers will spend time making the slopes flatter especially in cut sections when they can.
Kinda a PITA when you stake them and each station is on a different slope, sometimes 20:1 or 15:1 or something like that.
Anyway it doesn't seem to make sense to capture an easement for those, and when they don't want to acquire ROW they seem to steepen everything up to make it fit inside.
I suppose it depends on the type of soils, a little grass seed on our more lush areas and the next year everything is solid, if the drainage is handled then no issues, in the more dry areas that won't work as well.
We had that in Orange county California 30 years ago. Variable rate slopes to make the hillsides remain "natural looking". Was a royal PITA. Much easier to "fill 30' @ 2:1//level 7'//f-30' @ 2:1//level 15'// f-22' @ 2:1 top. opposed to f-30'@2.3:1//lev 7'//f-30'@1.7:1..... Grader was always lost trying to build it and asking lots of questions. Bottom line was the top had to be where the is was suppose to be. Benches had to drain. Good ole days :). Jp
Jp7191, post: 452109, member: 1617 wrote: We had that in Orange county California 30 years ago. Variable rate slopes to make the hillsides remain "natural looking". Was a royal PITA. Much easier to "fill 30' @ 2:1//level 7'//f-30' @ 2:1//level 15'// f-22' @ 2:1 top. opposed to f-30'@2.3:1//lev 7'//f-30'@1.7:1..... Grader was always lost trying to build it and asking lots of questions. Bottom line was the top had to be where the is was suppose to be. Benches had to drain. Good ole days :). Jp
I'm 80' west of this little road project centerline, out in a field setting a cut stake that has a cut of 4' for 60' to ditch, looking around and thinking WTH. Oh well it all pays the same 😉