A lengthy and contentious hearing over a chunk of driveway led to a continuance during the Munson Township Board of Zoning Appeals three-hour meeting May 21.
A lengthy and contentious hearing over a chunk of driveway led to a continuance during the Munson Township Board of Zoning Appeals three-hour meeting May 21.
Robert Brownlee, of Elk Run Drive, filed to keep an existing driveway turn-around zero feet from the property line. The township zoning resolution requires driveways to be a minimum of 15 feet from the property line.
It was the sixth of nine cases the BZA heard last Wednesday and the only continuance.
Brownlee shares a property line with Kurt Hoffmann, who attended the hearing carrying enlarged aerial photos from the Geauga County Auditor’s Office website showing the corner of Brownlee’s turn-around.
Hoffmann said he found the property line pin in the front yard, but there has been no survey and he believes, referring to the photo, that Brownlee’s turn-around encroaches on his property by several feet.
Although the pin at the back of the shared property line has been found, there is no direct line-of-sight from one pin to another because there are trees in the way, he said.
“We don’t know where the line is. We need a boundary survey,” Hoffmann said, adding if Brownlee’s appeal is approved, he wants proof of where the line is.
Brownlee said he had the turn-around, bordered with railroad ties, installed around 2008 and had it paved in 2011. His driveway is 150 feet long so visitors have a place to turn around rather than back down the long drive, he said.
“We have a lot of get-togethers and family. A lot of older people come. It’s a very convenient place for them to park,” Brownlee said. “In our cul-de-sac, nobody knows where the (property) lines are. Until we got a new neighbor, we never knew where the exact boundary line was.”
Removing the 325-square-foot turn-around would cost more than $2,000, Brownlee said.
Zoning Inspector Jim Herringshaw said the property lines shown on the county website can be uncertain by about five feet.
Hoffmann said Brownlee should pay for a survey to verify the property line. Board members said they were told by another applicant a survey could cost around $2,000.
“This is an offense on our property. It’s a potential hardship, encroaching on our property. It’s something we have to defend,” Hoffmann said. “The next owners will have to deal with (it).”
He asked that if the board approved Brownlee’s appeal, to attach the condition that Brownlee be mandated to get a boundary survey.
Board chairman Dennis Pilawa said one of the principals the board follows in all cases is making sure the adjoining property will not suffer a detriment as a result of a decision.
“I understand there is a legal wrong,” he said. “Essentially, this is a trespass on your property.”
He asked if Hoffmann had suffered a practical detriment from the encroachment of Brownlee’s driveway.
Hoffmann said all he has is the location survey, not a boundary survey because of the trees in the way.
Pilawa proposed the possibility of a continuance to allow time for a resolution between the parties.
“We (can) continue the hearing to give you folks time to work it out. If there is no imminent sale and nothing going on, maybe some discussion is worth it,” he said.
Brownlee said he’d talked to the zoning inspector about cutting the turn-around back to comply with the zoning resolution.
“We’d be losing something very important to us,” he said.
Pilawa asked what Brownlee would be losing, since, if Hoffmann’s pictures are correct, Brownlee was never entitled to the corner.
He urged a continuance of 30 days to allow for more communication between the parties.
“I’m not sure I can communicate any further with Kurt,” Brownlee said.
Hoffmann was equally adamant.
“My terms are: get it officially surveyed and the driveway changed. No negotiations,” he said, adding a civil lawsuit might be another option.
Board member Danielle Pitcock intervened.
“It would be less expensive to have someone take a chunk off (the driveway),” she said, adding whether the size of the chunk was three feet or five feet, it isn’t large.
“If we make a decision today, nobody’s happy,” she said.
Board member Don Ondrejka asked Hoffmann if Brownlee cutting back his turn-around so it ends just at the property line would satisfy him?
“So he’s not removing the entire (turn-around) and he doesn’t have to spend $4,000,” Ondrejka said.
Herringshaw said he would need time to study the pins on both ends of the line before the next BZA meeting.
Hoffmann said he’d accept a signed contract with Brownlee that if Hoffmann’s property changes hands, Brownlee would pay for a survey and adjust the turn-around.
“We’re not trying to make enemies,” he said.
Herringshaw said that might be a condition of a variance.
Brownlee asked for the continuance to give him time to talk to an attorney and his son.
