Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1998

Home

Page 4-- February 10, 1998 Z.B. public rights-of-way, the grantors meant to grant to the public riparian rights of access to the lake, including the right to build and use piers -- subject only to regulation by the proper municipal authority. Due to the silence of the plats themselves, the court considered the histori- cal circumstances surrounding the dedication of the easements, including the fact that the grantors lived in a time when the area was undeveloped. Accord- ing to the court, a current right-of-way was unlike the probable perception of a right-of-way in 1837. Cars didn't exist, and waterways were a far more important means of transportation than now. There was no electric, telephone, cable TV, or other wires around, and there was no need for underground use of rights-of- way for water and sewage. To the grantors, the court inferred, the essence of the right-of-way dedication to the publ!c would have been for transportation across land to water. Access to the water would imply the right to use the water the classic riparian right. The owners appealed again. They claimed the court incorrectly found that the grantors of the easements leading to the lake meant to include the use and enjoyment of all riparian rights attached to the property. DECISION: Affirmed. The evidence supported the trial court's finding that the 1837 grantors of the public rights-of-way leading to the lake intended to c0.nvey the riparian rights attached to the property. The trial court's inferences, based on historical circumstances, were rea- 'sortable. A street that ended at the edge of a lake contemplated that the public would use the street to access the lake. Moreover, access to water was gener- ally sought for purposes other than merely reaching the water. Based on the way the streets and alleys were platted and the circumstances surrounding the dedication of the easements, the grantors likely meant to include riparian rights in their dedication, including the right to build and use piers, and to reasonably divert or use water. The owners' argument, that the grantors' reservation of the right to "open streets and alleys as lots are sold" was evidence that their purpose in platting the easements was to provide access to lots they were trying to sell, was unpersuasive. That language did nothing to prove the grantors' intent, but was more likely to give the grantors leeway as to when they had to undertake the effort and expense of making the rights-of-way passable. see also: Abbs v. Town of Syracuse, 655 N.E.2d 114 (1995). Annexation-- Owner asks court to declare that annexation is in public interest City of Johnstown v. Town of Johnstown, 663 N.Y.S.2d 728 (New York) 1997 Believers Fellowship Center Inc. (owner) owned a 5.9-acre parcel of land within the town of Johnstown, N.Y. It wanted to have the property annexed by the city of Johnstown. The property was vacant land that the owner wanted to develop in connec- tion with adjacent property it used for religious purposes. The annexation was