Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2001 - - 09/10/01

Home

Page 2 -- August 25, 2001 Code -- City sues landlord for tenant's violation OHIO (06/29/01) -- A city code enforcement officer noticed an inoperable motor vehicle parked or stored in violation of city code. The vehicle was titled to Johnson. The real estate on which the vehicle was found was owned by LeicNy, but leased to Johnson. The officer issued a zoning code violation order to Johnson. When Johnson did not promptly have the vehicle removed, the city sued Leickly. Apparently, Leicldy first learned of the vehicle and the zoning code violation after the law- suit was served, The court found Johnson was responsible for moving the vehicle titled to him, but Leickly was not. The city appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Leickly was not responsible. Leickly could not have entered the property in the sole possession of Johnson and could not have removed the motor vehicle that was solely owned by Johnson. Leickly's only remedy would have been to evict Johnson and have Johnson's vehicle removed after Leicldy regained control of the premises. However, the city sued before Leickly could take any such action and the city did not notify Leickly of the problem before filing suit. The court exercised its discretion and refused to punish Leickly for failing to do the impossible. The court stated if the city wished to hold landlords who were out of possession legally responsible for the presence on the premises of vehicles they did not own, the city had to provide ample notice of the problem and time for the landlords to communicate with their lessees. The city even needed to allow time for the landlord to evict the lessees if communication did not solve the problem. If notice and time to remedy the problem' were.not Provided, the city needed to direct its lawsuits against the tenants who actually owned the illegally parked vehicle and were in posses- sion of the real estate where the vehicle was parked or stored. Citation: Cio' of Col~tmbus v. Leickly, Court of Appeals of Ohio, loth App. Dist., Franklin Co., No. O1AP:206 (200I). Taking -- Proposed development doesn't meet frontage requirement NEW HAMPSHIRE (07/06/01) --Sanderson wanted to develop a cluster sub- division of 34 single-family homes' on land with frontage on highways that were not maintained by either the town or the state. The town's zoning ordi- nance required a cluster subdivision to have a minimum of 100-foot frontage on a town or state-maintained road. In January 1999, the planning board denied the cluster subdivision applica- tion because, among other reasons, it did not have the required frontage. Sanderson sued, and the court ruled in favor of the town. Sanderson appealed, claiming the decision resulted in an illegal taking.