Hey there Dennis,

Our Planned Community’s asphalt is…not great…and unfortunately there is no cash for a replacement, so we need look at the challenge from as many angles as possible. The question comes, for how much of this asphalt is the community responsible.

A look at the plat survey of the area reveals that what seem today to be parking lots with thru access, were ordained as private roadways with utility access, which appear to be within the lot lines of the various development footprints of the association. However, there are two strips of asphalt that fall out side our property lines: one the acts as a 16′ wide shared drive that divides a parking area in our Association from the parking area of a smalling neighboring apartment building; and an 8′ strip of asphalt between a parking area of the Association and a long cindeeblock wall that lines the rear of a neighboring block of single family homes. These strips are not within our property line, and they are not withing the neighboring property lines either. Instead, on the plat they are drawn as belonging to the the area that is the domain of the city. They are shaded the same as the city streets and flow into them without any dividing property line.

So, I submitted a pot hole report to the Mesa Department of Transportation on these two strips of asphalt. The Department elected to send a crew to fill the potholes on the 8′ wide strip between our Association and the neighboring row of single family houses, but determined that the 16′ wide strip between our Association and the neighboring apartment building was the responsibility of the abutting property owners, not them and they our Association and the apartment building owner would have to work out the repare of the strip of asphalt between our properties.

I sent a note off to Mark Freeman’s office and Mark was kind enough to send it on to the Transportation Department.

And RJ Zeder sent me a follow-up email affirming that “Although the plat for your development is not clear who is assigned responsibility for maintenance, it is clear that it is a private roadway and easement for underground utilities. There is no mechanism for the City to assume maintenance responsibility for what essentially is a shared driveway between your development and the property to the west.” And suggested that I “approach your neighbor to the west and perform the necessary repairs jointly.”

So there’s that. I get what’s going on, but it defies logic. How can a city reject its responsibility for land within its boundaries that it has not included in any deed transfer, just by calling it a private roadway on a plat survey of the area grid?