Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2005

Home

Page 4 --March 25, 2005 Nuisance -- Changes to neighboring lot cause flooding Neighbors want property to be returned to original state Citation: Greiner v. Wemer, Court of Appeals of Iowa, Nos. 5-015/04~0380 (2005) IOWA (02/09/05) -- W'dliams was a next-door neighbor to Wemer. Wemer removed the existing house on his property and built a concrete foundation and berm, which raised the back portion of his lot. YVemer also moved dirt onto his lot. ~Eventu- ally, Wemer placed a doublewide mobile home on the front portion of his lot: W~flliams sued, cia/ming the changes to Wemer's lot altered the natural drainage of water and caused excess water to come onto his lot. Williams requested the court to order Wemer to restore his land to its original condition. The court ordered Wemer only to build a sufficient drainage ditch and curb to divert the excess water. The court refused to order Wemer to remove the mobile home and foundation. WilLiams appealed, arguing the nuisance caused, by Wemer's changes to his lot would not be abated unless Wemer was requ/_red to restore h/s lot to its prior condition. DE CISION: Al:Framed. Wemer did not have to return his lot to its prior condition. Wemer only had to ensure water, once on his lot, drained as it did before he altered his lot elevation. It would be excessive and cause undue hardship to order Wemer to restore his lot to its original condition. A landowner had an obligatisn to use his property in a manner that did not unreasonably interfere or disturb his neighbor's comfortable and reasonable use and enjoyment of his property. The law did not completely prohibit a land- owner from using or changing his own property. Therefore, as long as the excess water was diverted from Williams's land, the court would not order Wemer to undue ali of the changes he had made to his lot. see also: Weinhold v. Wolff, 555 iV. W. 2d 454 (1996). see also: Mel Foster Co. Properties v. American Oil Co., 427 iV. W. 2d 171 (1988). Nonconforming Use -- Neighbor claims city mUSt reScind after-the,fact permit Claims nonconforming use was lost when garage expanded Citation: Hill v. City of Glendale, Court of Appeal of California, 2nd App. Dist.,Div. 2, No. t3173383 (2005) CALIFORNIA (02/03/05) -- Hill's neighbor, Mart, owned a nonconforming ga- rage less than four feet from the street. Mart expanded the garage without a building permit and.failed to br/ng it into cornpliance with the city's 15-foot setback requirement. Over the next several years, the city cited and prosecuted Mart. When Mart stated he planned to sell his property, the city saw an opportunity to rid itself of tl~e ongoing enforcement burden. Thus, the city issugd an after-the-fact permit for the illegal expansion, and Mart sold the property. © 2005 Quinlan PuaJis~tng Group, ,Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 106