![]() The common area is subject to these easements. Planned Development (with common area owned by the association)Īppurtenant to each separate interest is an easement for ingress, egress, and support, if necessary, appurtenant to each separate interest.The common area is subject to these rights. Planned Development (with common area owned in common by the owners of the separate interests)Īppurtenant to each separate interest are nonexclusive rights of ingress, egress, and support, if necessary, through the common area.easements) differ slightly based upon the category of CID and the ownership structure of the common areas: Category of CID Code § 4505.) The legal form of these rights (rights vs. Pawlak said the city may be able to offer some assistance.Ĭouncil is expected to take a final vote on the measure next week.Unless otherwise provided in an association’s CC&Rs, the association’s members have legal rights of ingress, egress and support through and over the common areas located in the common interest development (“CID”). Councilman Anthony Coghill, D-Beechview, who represents the area, said their “egress from Route 51 is not quite satisfactory” to move large equipment, but suggested the city could help improve that route. Wabash Properties contends in its lawsuit that the bridge is “the only means of ingress, egress and regress of large delivery vehicles to access the property and the only location for plaintiff’s employees to park their vehicles while working.”Ĭity officials said there is another way to enter and exit the property. ![]() She estimated the bridge likely would not be torn down for two to three years. Lucas said the city’s law department advised DOMI to continue moving ahead with demolition plans despite the ongoing lawsuit. The city is monitoring the bridge’s condition until it can tear it down. What are the limits of an ingress/egress easement for the dominant estate Say I own an easement across a neighboring property for ingress and egress, pretty clearly the document creates access and has no other details or limitations. 31, but city officials did not address it until February.Ĭity officials said they have since removed loose concrete and repaired deteriorated steel beams. The report said spalling - or breaking - of a portion of the bridge was a concern “because this entire section could let loose and fall directly onto/into live traffic.” Bridges with that ranking had structural problems so serious that WSP USA’s experts indicated they should be addressed within a week. The bridge was one of 13 spans that independent experts commissioned by the city classified as “priority zero” in a comprehensive bridge report published in December. “It’s imperiling traffic on Route 51 below,” he said. The bridge is “certainly in bad shape” and is a “significant liability” to the city in its present state, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Jake Pawlak said. He did not provide an estimate on how much the demolition might cost. All council members supported it in a preliminary vote except Council President Theresa Kail-Smith, D-West End, who abstained.Įric Setzler, DOMI’s chief engineer, said the design process will include determining whether the hill on either side of the bridge needs to be stabilized after the structure is removed and planning out the demolition itself. The legislation advanced by council Wednesday would kick off the design process for the demolition. She said the city has secured state funding for the demolition. It “makes more sense” to demolish the bridge than to try to repair it given that the city doesn’t use it and it’s in poor condition, said Kim Lucas, director of the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure. Rohrich has not responded to requests for comment. In the complaint, Wabash Properties said the city was responsible for maintaining the span, which is essential for the company to use their property. Wabash Properties LLC, which owns the land used by Rohrich, claimed in a lawsuit that the city would be violating agreements it previously made regarding the bridge by tearing it down. The bridge is not used as a public right-of-way, but is used by Rohrich GM Parts Center, which is adjacent to the span. The bridge crosses over Saw Mill Run Boulevard near Woodruff Street, linking the city’s Bon Air and Mt. Pittsburgh City Council advanced legislation Wednesday that, if adopted, would clear the way for the city to tear down a poorly rated bridge despite an ongoing lawsuit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |