Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2007

Home

.j I ] i I I October 1, 2007\ Volume 1\ No. 19 \ 1 I I I \ i 1 1 \ i ! i 1 I I \ .j I \ I I I i I I i \ I i I court concluded that it wasn't necessary to examine the remaining is- sues. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. See also: Brown County v. Meidinger, 271 N. W2d 15 (S.D. 1978). Easement-Property owner seeks to discontinue easement on his land used by neighbor to keep horses Horse own~r claims use of the easement valid accessory use of own property Citation: Baccouche v. Blankenship, 2007 WL 2600544 (Cal: App. 2d Dist. 2007) CALIFORNIA (09/11/07)-Blankenship owned a 22,000 square foot lot in the Sunland area of Los Angeles. His neighbor, Baccouche, owned a 170,320 square foot. lot, which was contiguous to his lot. Both lots were zoned residential estate by the city. Blankenship lived on his property, but the Baccouche property was vacant. Before either prope.rty owner took control of their respective lots, an easement of three-quarters of an acre of the northeast corner of the Bac- couche lot was granted for previous landowner's "keeping and enjoy- j . ment of horses" on the easement area. When Blankenship bought the property, he continued to use the easement to keep horses. Baccouche . knew of the easement before he purchased his lot. . At some point, Baccouche was interested in subdividing his property. Given the zoning .requirements, and to maximize the number of lots that could be produced by subdivision, Baccouche sought to have the ease- ment invalidated. Baccouche claimed that Blankenslllp's use of the ease- ment for keeping horses was illegal, citing the regulations for the zone that allowed the keeping of. horses only "in conjunction with the resi- dential use of the lot." Baccouche claimed that, because the easement . was on his lot and his lot was vacant, horses could not be kept there. Blankenship count~red that his keeping of horses in the eas.ement was an "accessory," and therefore valid, use of his land. Subsequently, Bac- couche sued Blankenship, seeking a declaration from the. court that the easement was invalid, The court found that the easement valid and that Blankenship could continue to lawfully use the easement to keep horses, reasoning that Blankenship's use of the easement was in conjunction with the residen- tial use of his own lot. It was not necessary, the court stated, that. the Baccouche lot have a residence on it for the easement to be lawful, so . long as Blankenship's use of the easement was residential and complied . ) .....-. with all other aspects of the relevant zoning code. Baccouche appealed. /~ ~ .) 9 83