further to Zoning violation and Adverse Poss.
Hello. To Steve F. specifically, I am presuming neighbor is claiming in excess of ten years that the tub has been there, since his lawyer states in recent letter that they will rely on adverse possession if I move to construct a fence actually ON the surveyed straight line, as opposed to going around the extant tub. I will impress on lawyer when I (or my JD) call him, that burden of proof here is a high one, and 100% on them.
I have been here for 30 years, they only 22 years, so I was here first. I believe that no building permit was or is required to install the tub, tho I will check on this, but in any case the zoning case is moving ahead without delay (if you can call up to one year as no delay!) to prosecution, and I see no way he can squirm out of having to move the tub itself... since it is not only not 6 ft. away from line, it actually straddles and goes over it by 2 ft.!
Yes, I have sent certified and registered mail notices asking him to move structures off the line, as well as about a year ago a notice to him (thru a constable) that I have taken notice of his occupancy which from thenceforth is only with my permission, ie, a stop to any further AP period elapsing.
Something else I failed to mention, I also checked city records and beyond the tub he about 15 yrs ago added a house addition (expanded kitchen and dining room it appears) to rear of house, plus a outside deck at rear as well. These don't cross the property line so are not an issue re the fence, but both deck and addition appear to violate the 15 ft. minimum setback required (for years and years I believe) by city ordinance, since they are between only 10 to 12 ft. off the line. However when he constructed these he did not get any zoning variance(s) and/or building permit(s), nor related required occupancy inspection(s).
I believe I could hold this variance violation in reserve (a Damocles's sword in other words) if I wanted to get his agreement to drop the AP issue... since if I did pull trigger on the variance issue with the house itself, that could set off major action by the city of EP, no? (They don't normally like people building things that violate zoning without proper variances, permits etc., correct?)
Your thoughts much appreciated. Albert L.