Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/2004

Home

Page 6 -- April 25, 2004 7..8. Encroaching tree roots and limbs by themselves could not notify a land- owner of a claim to use the ~ound. Encroaching tree parts did not establish open and notorious use of the land.' Importantly, neither roots nor limbs fairly notified an owner of a claim for use at the surface. In the absence of additional circumstances, such as use of the pound for maintenance or collection of leaves or fruit, roots and branches alone did not alert an owner that his or her exclu- sive dominion over the ground was challenged. The philosophy of the law was simply that whenever neighbors could not agree, the law would protect each owner's fights insofar as that was possible. A judgment for Koresko would cause landowners to seek self-help or to liti- gate each time a piece of vegetation started' to overhang their property for fear of losing the use or partial use of their property as the vegetation grew. see also: Siegmond v. D[tschak, 7]4 A. 2d 4c99 (J998). see also: Pede~z v. Gambone Brothers Development Company, 798 A.2d 305 (2002). 112 Taking -- Corporation claims billboard prohibition deserves just compensation Argues it is being stopped frora using land any way it wants Citation: Lamar Corporation v. City of Cambridge, Co~trt of Appeals of Ohio, 5th App. Dist., Gt~er~sey Co., No. 03-CA-02 (2004) OHIO (03/04/04) -- Lamar Corporation acquired ownership of a pre-ex/sting billboard built pursuant to a permit and approved construction plans. However, some time afterward, the.city of Cambridge concluded the bill- board had been located by one of Lamar's predecessors on the roadway right of way. Accordingly, that predecessor was ordered to remove the billboard. Lamar wanted the billboard replaced. It claimed it possessed property rights in the billboard that required just compensation from the city. The city disagreed. Lamar sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city, Lamar appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The city's decision to prohibit the reconstruction of the billboard was within the purview of its police powers and did not equate to a taking without just compensation. An owner's right as user of his or her land was limited to lawful or legiti- mate uses. In fact, the state constitution stated pr/vale property was inviolate. but subservient to the public welfare. Ultimately, Lamar's argument failed because it was based upon the wrong assumption that ownership of land included an unrestricted right to use such land for any purpose for which it was usable. However, the public welfare cC 2004 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.