Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1998

Home

Z.B. February 10, 1998-- Page 3 subdivision plat, "all the owners of lots which are to be part of the replat" had to agree. A replat was the process of changing the boundaries of a recorded subdivision pl0t, so all the owners of the lots in Brookshire Estates had to agree to the replat because the boundaries of Brookshire Estates would be changed if Lot 12 was annexed by Brookshire 2. In other words, all lot owners in a subdivision had to agree to the replat, even if their particular parcel wasn't involved. Moreover, the developer's argument that as the owner of Lot 12 it could unilaterally "agree" to the lot's replat would lead to "patently absurd results." To allow lot owners to "agree" to replat their lots would mean that any lot owner who was unhappy with the use restrictions on his or her lot could "agree" to replat the lot, meaning the lot would no longer be bound by the use restrictions. All use restrictions would quickly become unenforceable. see also: Marx v. Department of Commerce, 558 N. W.2d 460 (1996). Easement- Town and residents disagree over whether easements included riparian rights Abbs v. Town of Syracuse, .686 N.E. 2d 928 (Indiana) 1997 Abbs owned shoreline property on Syracuse Lake in Indi~ma, She and other shoreline property owners (owners) sued the town of Syracuse and vari- ous residents who had built piers and docked boats at the ends of certain public streets and alleys that led to the lake. The owners' lots bordered the streets and alleys, and they owned the property upon which the streets and alleys were built. They sought a court order declaring their right to regulate the riparian rights to the lake. The town's original plat, created in 1837, showed the existence of several streets and alleys dedicated as public rights-of-way leading to the lake. The. original plat didn't explain the purpose of the rights-of-way. An 1875 plat showed the same rights-of-way, adding only that the grantors were "reserving the fight to open streets and aIIeys as lots are sold." ... The court granted the town judgment without atriaI, finding that the town owned the riparian rights with respect to the public streets and alleys that ended at the lake, so the owners couldn't claim exclusive riparian rights or exclude members of the public. The owners appealed, arguing that, as the title owners of the property upon which the streets and alleys were built, they ~ not the town -- owned the riparian rights for that property. The appeals court found the owners were correct in saying they held title to the riparian rights because they held titIe to the property under the streets and alleys. Nevertheless, the court found that it was unclear to what extent, if any, the rights-of-way easements included with them the right to use the riparian rights. Because the easements were ambiguous, the appeals court returned the matter to the trial court for it to determine the intent of the grantors who created the rights-of-way easements. The trial court again ruled in favor of the town. It found that in creating the