Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

Page 8 -- September 10, 2005 Appeal-- Court believes testimony from unfriendly neighbor Enjoins property owner from using mobile home Citatio~: Baker v. Blevi~s, Cottrt of Appeals of Ohio, 2nd App. Dist., Ctark Cotmty, No. 2004-CA-56 (2005) OHIO (07/15/05) -- In 1988, Blevins placed a mobile home on his property. In 2000, the zoning code changed, and the mobile home became a pree~sting nonconforming use. As such, if the use of the 'mobile home was discontinued for two years or more, it could not be resumed. Pdekefs, a neighboring property owner, claimed the mobile home.was emp- tied in the middle .o.f the night on June 16, 2000. On Aug. 21,2001, he clah'ried the mobile home was moved from its pad. Finally, Riekers said the home was re- turned to its pad on Sept. 12, 2003. Although he did not report Btevins tO the zoning inspector, Riekers kept notations about events because he was not sure the township was keeping track. There was obvious animosity between Riekers and Blevins. At one time, they had been in business together, but the relationship ended amidst allega- tions of misplaced funds and equipment. Riekers also stated Blevins yelled at him every time Riekers entered his driveway. The zoning inspector sued to stop Blevins' use of the mobile home, and the court ruled in Ms favor, thus prohibiting Blevins from maintaining a mobile home on his property. It found the use had been discontinued for more than two years. Blevins appealed, arguing the court should not have credited Riekers's testimony because of the animosity between the parties. DECISION: Affirmed. The court acted reasonably. The court clearly chose to believe Rieker's testimony. It found Pdekers's testimony was the best evidence on dates, since he kept detailed records on calendars and had transferred the information to a thai exhibit. Furthermore, the zoning inspector said he was certain the mobile home had been off its original site for more than two years. Although the zorfing inspector could not remember the exact dates, he stressed he took notice that the mobile home was gone and knew the period was longer than two years. He also said he frequently visited the property. The zoning inspector had worked for more than 25 years in his position and would have been intimately familiar with property in the township. Mor.eover, there was no evidence the zoning inspector harbored any animosity toward Btevins. see also: U~ion Town,ship Board of Trustees v. Old 74 Corporation, 738 N.E. 2d 477 (2000). © 2005 QuinJC, n Puolishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 210