Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

Z.B. November 10, 2005 -- Page 5 property without his knowledge'and without tis Consent. In particular, Teachout testified tlmt large piles of exposed cinder blocks and tires had been left on his property without his knowledge, and he had been unable to remove the debris. Inoperable vehicles also were abandoned on the- property. Teachout stated that because he did not know the identity of the individuals who had abandoned various items, he could not obtain andtransfer title to sell or remove the items. The collection of exposed and abandoned items -- which were left on Teachout's property without his knowledge -- did not correspond with. the alleged nonconforming use for storage and farm equipment sales. In short, Teachout had simply allowed his property to become a refuge for abandoned property. This use was outside the scope of the alleged nonconforming use for storage and equipment sales. Ultimately, Teachout failed to establish a legal nonconforming use with~ respect to the abandoned and exposed items. see also: Alumimtm Smelting & Refining Co. Inc. v. Denmark Township Zoning Board of Zoning Appeals, 2002 Ohio 6690 (2002). Adverse Possession -- Boathouse straddles property line for decades Boathouse owner claims rights· by adverse possession Citation: Cootsaet v. Mans, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 260210 (2005) MICHIGAN (09/22/05) -- Coolsaet and Mans owned adjoining lots along the Detroit River in Trenton. Mans' property contained a boathouse that encroached on the neighbor- mg lot by three feet since the 1940s. Coolsaet was aware of this encroachment when he purchased his lot in 1989. [n 2003, Mans began tO renovate the boathouse. Coolsaet sued for trespass, and the court ruled in his favor, ordering Mans to stop her renovations. Mans appealed, arguing she had acquired title to the property through adverse possession. D E CISION: Reversed, Mans established the necessary element of hostile intent for an adverse possession claim. The undisputed facts disclosed that the boathouse had remained on the disputed property since the 1940s. Mans was aware of this encroachment as early as 1970, and continued to keep the boathouse Ln the same location, know- i~g that it was not on her property. Notwithstanding the lack of any actual knowledge of the encroachment by the true owner of the property, the possession was open, visible, and notorious 1:o raise a presumption of notice to the world that the rights of the true owner h~d been invaded. 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. A,~y reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 63