Illegal road connection thru Common Element? MI
Michigan
In the fall of 1998, we purchased a condominium in Traverse City, MI. We received at the sale a Master Deed with amended and restated bylaws. This document is recorded “As Built” with the Grand Traverse County Register of Deeds and clearly shows Robin Hood Lane (our street) to be a wholly contained element within the property lines of Sherwood Hills (our condo development).
In the spring of 2001, we became aware of impending plans for the construction of new condominiums adjacent to Sherwood Hills. The plans published by the developer indicate, “Connect to existing Robinhood court with proposed road connection.” However, no proposal was ever presented to the Co-owners of Sherwood Hills.
We addressed a letter to the Board of Directors with our concerns. The Board informed us of the existing ingress/egress easements. According to Article X section 4 (g) of the Master Deed “granting any easement, rights of entry, rights of way and licenses to through over and with respect to the Common Elements of the Condominium requires an affirmative vote of more than sixty (60%) percent of all Co-Owners.” No vote was taken granting the adjacent developer easements through Common Elements of Sherwood Hills.
We maintain that the adjacent developer, may have rights for existing roads, but have no right to seize Sherwood Hills deeded common element property and transform it to the own purposes. Co-owners in the adjacent development have full ingress and egress to their property via frontage and connection to a county road. The adjacent new development is not landlocked. The connection to RobinHood Lane is one of convenience and not necessity.
In addition, this “connection” openly flows significant volumes of surface water from the adjacent development into the drains of our building. This flow is obvious and self evident during any rain shower. The Manager ignores this and promotes with deliberate negligence to the Board of Directors that this is due to lack of gutters (we have gutters) or “groundwater”. Noted in the Aug. 16 2003 Board meeting minutes, “It is the manager’s opinion that it is the gutter on Building 7 and tree trimming are the solution to the mold problem” There is a documented history of water damage and mold problems that correlates with the construction of this “connection”. Co-owners have had to pay over 10 thousand dollars for mold related repairs.
This “connection” has in practice, become the most convenient and most used access to the adjacent development. Our narrow private drive was not designed to handle the amount of traffic that the adjacent development places on it. Our condominium association has placed a 5 mph limit on RobinHood Lane. This is universally ignored despite our complaints. Our garbage area, parking spaces and garage buildings are located across RobinHood Lane. This has placed us in a precarious and dangerous situation, as we must now dodge traffic as we go about normal activities.
This connection also allows the adjacent development resident’s access to our property as a destination. This is very distinct from ingress and egress. The adjacent development residents regularly use our dumpster. The dumpster is consistently overflowing with excess trash from their use. This results in an unsightly condition and trash blown about our property. Dog owners are using this “connection” to access our common element. The results of this are particularly unsavory and unsanitary.
We have complained to the Property Manager about the above. Her reply was that it was our responsibility to provide her with names and license plate numbers of offenders. We contend that it is not our responsibility to police the property. It is not our responsibility to research soil and erosion ordinances, report violations and seek remedies. It is the Property Manager’s responsibility to protect our property and best interests.
We would be seeking to restore and repair Robinhood Lane to the Master Deed and be compensated for the devaluation of our unit and garage. We would seek to be compensated for the diminished aesthetic appeal of our common element areas. We would expect that somebody be held accountable for all damage associated with runoff of surface water onto our condo development’s property.
Is this reasonable?
Please reply with comment. Thanks for your help.
Michigan
In the fall of 1998, we purchased a condominium in Traverse City, MI. We received at the sale a Master Deed with amended and restated bylaws. This document is recorded “As Built” with the Grand Traverse County Register of Deeds and clearly shows Robin Hood Lane (our street) to be a wholly contained element within the property lines of Sherwood Hills (our condo development).
In the spring of 2001, we became aware of impending plans for the construction of new condominiums adjacent to Sherwood Hills. The plans published by the developer indicate, “Connect to existing Robinhood court with proposed road connection.” However, no proposal was ever presented to the Co-owners of Sherwood Hills.
We addressed a letter to the Board of Directors with our concerns. The Board informed us of the existing ingress/egress easements. According to Article X section 4 (g) of the Master Deed “granting any easement, rights of entry, rights of way and licenses to through over and with respect to the Common Elements of the Condominium requires an affirmative vote of more than sixty (60%) percent of all Co-Owners.” No vote was taken granting the adjacent developer easements through Common Elements of Sherwood Hills.
We maintain that the adjacent developer, may have rights for existing roads, but have no right to seize Sherwood Hills deeded common element property and transform it to the own purposes. Co-owners in the adjacent development have full ingress and egress to their property via frontage and connection to a county road. The adjacent new development is not landlocked. The connection to RobinHood Lane is one of convenience and not necessity.
In addition, this “connection” openly flows significant volumes of surface water from the adjacent development into the drains of our building. This flow is obvious and self evident during any rain shower. The Manager ignores this and promotes with deliberate negligence to the Board of Directors that this is due to lack of gutters (we have gutters) or “groundwater”. Noted in the Aug. 16 2003 Board meeting minutes, “It is the manager’s opinion that it is the gutter on Building 7 and tree trimming are the solution to the mold problem” There is a documented history of water damage and mold problems that correlates with the construction of this “connection”. Co-owners have had to pay over 10 thousand dollars for mold related repairs.
This “connection” has in practice, become the most convenient and most used access to the adjacent development. Our narrow private drive was not designed to handle the amount of traffic that the adjacent development places on it. Our condominium association has placed a 5 mph limit on RobinHood Lane. This is universally ignored despite our complaints. Our garbage area, parking spaces and garage buildings are located across RobinHood Lane. This has placed us in a precarious and dangerous situation, as we must now dodge traffic as we go about normal activities.
This connection also allows the adjacent development resident’s access to our property as a destination. This is very distinct from ingress and egress. The adjacent development residents regularly use our dumpster. The dumpster is consistently overflowing with excess trash from their use. This results in an unsightly condition and trash blown about our property. Dog owners are using this “connection” to access our common element. The results of this are particularly unsavory and unsanitary.
We have complained to the Property Manager about the above. Her reply was that it was our responsibility to provide her with names and license plate numbers of offenders. We contend that it is not our responsibility to police the property. It is not our responsibility to research soil and erosion ordinances, report violations and seek remedies. It is the Property Manager’s responsibility to protect our property and best interests.
We would be seeking to restore and repair Robinhood Lane to the Master Deed and be compensated for the devaluation of our unit and garage. We would seek to be compensated for the diminished aesthetic appeal of our common element areas. We would expect that somebody be held accountable for all damage associated with runoff of surface water onto our condo development’s property.
Is this reasonable?
Please reply with comment. Thanks for your help.
Last edited: