Neighbor cooperation preferred, especially in sticky disputes

Property Line Disputes

The code office regularly receives complaints about many things. Some are anonymous, and some people identify themselves, about 50/50.

Typically it has something to do about their neighbors. Things like parking of cars, trailers, unlicensed cars, snowmobiles, clothes lines, camp fire smoke, noise, cutting trees, usage of docks, property line disputes, construction activity, the list can go on and on.

Rarely are complaints about general issues around the town, not directly related to a neighbor.

All too often the complainant believes that they will resolve the issue just by “blowing the neighbor in.”

Usually, as soon as Code Enforcement gets involved, the level of animosity between the parties immediately and substantially increases.

And, more often than not, each party is trying their best to get the Code Office to take sides and start some kind of enforcement action accordingly.

Some issues are clear and enforceable.

Others may not be so clear, at least to the degree the complainant believes.

Some of the most difficult situations are over property line disputes, especially when two or even three different, licensed, supposedly competent surveyors do not agree.

Dealing with personal property becomes very personal. The Code Office understands that and respects everybody’s opinion.

However, the Code Office cannot and will not decide who is right and who is wrong.

Clearly property line disputes are a civil matter, not a municipal matter. Sure the town has tax maps which are prepared by the County [not the town] and are used for assessment purposes and general parcel ID information.

But ultimately these maps are a guide and cannot be relied upon as the determinative source of who has what.

Recently, the Code Office has found itself in the middle of a property line dispute.

After receiving an application for an addition of a deck to a house, the Code Office requested a survey showing where the property lines are relative to the addition… which had already started.

Aside from the enforcement issues of starting without proper permits in place, the applicant ultimately did provide a survey which showed compliance.

During the time that it took to obtain that survey, the neighbors objected to the addition saying it was on their land.

As they believe they are correct, it was certainly a legitimate complaint.

Now the fun begins.

The neighbors provide surveys showing they are correct, which seems to agree with the town’s tax maps and other surveying work done in the area.

When the applicant provides the survey he had done, nothing agrees.

The applicant’s survey shows full compliance for his project, in direct contradiction to the neighbor’s surveys.

Everybody wants the Code Office to act in their favor.

Imagine that.

The applicant wants his permit as he believes he is entitled, and under normal circumstances the permit should be granted without hesitation.

The neighbor wants the permit denied and enforcement action to commence because work had already begun.

Either way the town is put in a situation that is impossible.

Although this office is inclined to think the applicant should be granted his permit, based solely on the information submitted with the application, and on no other information.

Obviously that would be done with the knowledge of contradictory information provided by the neighbors.

Before any action, approval or denial of the application, this office will solicit the advice of legal counsel.

In the meantime, it is hoped that the neighbors can put their emotions aside, and understand what the needs of each other are and find common ground to resolve the issues.

In other words resolve it in a civil manner.

We all know how messy and expensive things get when we duke it out in the Supreme Court.

And at the end of the day, we are still neighbors.