Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSomeGuy
...Just because we all an easement for possible sidewalks or utilities next to the street it does not transfer to someone walking a dog and allow them to use it as they please (but I personally do not care if you let your dog walk on my lawn....)
|
That is likely incorrect.
Very few homes in The Villages have easements for sidewalks or utilities, next to the street. People often use the wrong terminology, when talking about the "non-travelled part (non-paved) of the way".
In the olden days, folks often owned to the centerline of a street/road and the roadway was located on an easement. That is no longer the case, particularly if the road was layed out in the last 50 years. These days, a road "taking" or a road "layout", is usually 40%-100% wider than the proposed travelled way (paved portion). The standard "taking" or "road layout" for a residential street, is typically 40' to 60', with the travelled way, occupying from about 24' to 30'.
The reason it's done this way, is to allow room for the municipality to: work on/repair the road, install utilities and to account for minor variances in the exact location of the road, when it's actually constructed.
The easement part is NOT the municipality being granted an easement for the road, it's the other way around. Abutting owner and drivers on the road are granted an easement to use the travelled way and the area immediately adjoining it. So in most cases, folks walking along the side of a road that doesn't have a sidewalk, are walking on municipally owned land and the homeowner has nothing to say about it.
If a city or state decides to built a major road or interstate, they may do a "taking" that could be 100's of feet wide, even though the actually roadway is only going to be 100' in width. Unless there are unusual constraints, it will normally be a "fee simple taking", rather than an easement.
Just a guess, but parts of the historic district might be different.