My question involves an easement in the state of: North Carolina.
An rather ugly and potentially dangerous incident happened yesterday, Valentine’s day, at our home in this unincorporated county portion of NC, near the city of Lewisville, close to Winston-Salem, all of which are in the county of Forsyth.. We own a large land parcel which is bounded by two secondary roads, with our home on the corner. Having owned several homes and being acquainted with what I thought was the purpose and legal intent of the ROW on either side of the secondary/any road or highway, it has always been my understanding that the purpose of a public ROW such as these is to provide for and allow the use of the property on either side of the road which is measured as thirty feet from the center line of the road) for the public good for such things as utilities, drainage, water, sewer, etc. This is to promote safety, sanitation, and all such uses which are for the greater good of the community. Thus, the individual property owners on either side of the road whose property abuts the road covenants to the state, county, town or city the right of way on the landowners owner's property the right to utilize said ROW for these uses.
As with all ROW or easements, there is either a separate document of agreement allowing said easement or ROW, sometimes for an agreed upon amount of money, sometimes freely granted, such as for a ROW across someone's land to allow a neighboring farmer [farmer Brown] to to move his cattle from one section to another section of farmer Brown's land. In this case, the land upon which the ROW exists is still the property of the grantor of the ROW, not farmer Brown's, nor can any other person -- aside from the farmer Brown --utilize this ROW for any purpose or at any time without the express permission [written or verbally] of the landowner. If, for example the neighbor of farmer Brown snowplowed his driveway and had three loader bucketful’s of snow, driveway gravel, sticks and various other debris to dispose of, he then decides to dump this onto Farmer Brown's ROW without any form of permission, because it is convenient for him and he doesn't have to dump this on his own land, which he prefers not to do.
Would this be a legal infringement on farmer Brown's property rights?
I say: yes it would.
Now, for the case at hand; The Valentine’s Day issue. On that and the previous day our area experienced a very large snow storm. Directly across the secondary road side street is a church which hired a company to plow their drive ways, which are very long. For the first time since we have lived here, since 1997, the plowing company decided to dump 3-4 full bucket loads of the snow, rocks, tree debris, etc. from the driveway of the private property owner (church) on our ROW, which I maintain as part of the lawns of this antique property. I was not asked permission and when I told the man handling the bucket loader he can't do this without my permission, and I wasn't granting him permission unless he agreed to return after this all melted and clean away all the debris. He said his boss told him to dump it there, and we finally got a visit from his boss, who asserted that they have done this before [not since we've owned the land, but maybe with the previous, now deceased owner]. He also said this is not our land because it is a ROW, stating clearly "You don’t even own that land and so I can do anything I want with it." Keep in mind that he is a private businessman who is clearing snow/debris for the convenience of a private property owner across the road, which is NOT the same as a PUBLIC USE.
I disagree. I asserted that this is not land for anyone's private use; this is my land which I have covenanted a ROW solely for the use by public entities to use for the public good, noted above. It is not true that this is not my land, albeit for all intents and purposes, as in eminent domain, it can be used at will by the legal authorities and utilities granted such use by the public authorities to use the land as is seen fit and for LEGAL purposes only. Private landowners and their private hirelings do not have these rights.
Is this analysis correct?
Many thanks for any interest and time in replying to this,
Richard Marvell

