The Property Line Dispute Begins

The Property Line Dispute Initiates

The Property Line Dispute Initiates

The Property Line Dispute Starts

This exhibit is part of a bigger property dispute.

August 17th, 2004.

Michael and Mary Jacobson (homeowners of neighboring property) then submitted a new set of plans and Michael  informed me of a discrepancy on our shared lot line of 264 ft.

A property line dispute is born.

Uh Oh, this is bad news!

This means that I am now landlocked with no potential to develop and it also sets my garage / barn loft at 2.5′ from the property line.

This revelation has no impact on Michael,   but I am devastated. How could this be….

Planning Action Finds, Conclusions and Orders (PA 2004-058)

This exhibit is part of a bigger property dispute. The exhibit is found below the explanation.

July 22nd, 2004, PA 2004-058 was approved with conditions and signed off by Bill Molnar (Senior Planner, City of Ashland). The property had yet to be surveyed.

I believe it was thought that once lot 1800 and 1900 were consolidated, the front yard requirements would be met but this was not so.

The existing house did not meet the criteria for front yard variance on Black Oak. It would need to maintain street frontage on Tolman Creek.

Planning Action Finds, Conclusions and Orders (PA 2004-058)

Planning Action Finds, Conclusions and Orders (PA 2004-058)

Ashland Planning Commission Hearing Board Minutes – PA 2004-058

Ashland Planning Commission Hearing Board Minutes: PA 2004-058

Ashland Planning Commission Hearing Board Minutes: PA 2004-058

Ashland Planning Commission Hearing  – PA 2004-058

This exhibit is part of a bigger property dispute.

I DIDN’T SAY WHAT IS RECORDED IN MINUTES!

I attended the public hearing and I testified on the behalf of Michael and Mary Jacobson, or so I thought.

I testified that I did not feel the Jacobsons should be coerced into partitioning their property into three parcels when it was their desire to create only two parcels. I never voiced concerns regarding congestion or traffic. These things do not affect me directly. I also mentioned two story homes being built in area of single story homes seemed invasive.

Throughout this process, I had been meeting with Derek Severson with the Ashland Planning Dept.

We discussed various options for the potential development of my property. My lot is .61 acres, the equivalent of two city lots.

He had told me that if it were up to City Planning, he would envision a lot split with access off Black Oak. He also envisioned my primary residence on Tolman being served by newly created flag lot on Black Oak.  This eliminates two residences on Tolman Creek and creates five residences utilizing Black Oak.

Derek  Severson  was also part of the hearing board.

There was no hint of a property line dispute at this time.

Planning Action: PA 2004-058

Planning Action: PA 2004-058

Planning Action: PA 2004-058

Planning Action: PA 2004

This exhibit is part of a bigger property dispute.

The Jacobsons began making several trips to Ashland to make this happen.

Many neighbors were not happy about two more houses on Black Oak, which is a sleepy gravel road with very little traffic. Another issue was two story homes being built in neighborhoods consisting of single-story homes. Many wanted him to reconsider and opt for 2 parcels.

I, on the other hand, have always felt it was his right as the property owner to develop if that is what he chooses. I remained neutral.

It was I who posted the public hearing sign, which is required by law. Michael informed me as to the exact location it had to be posted and also the exact time and date.

I also asked him on this day; “Why do you want to exploit this beautiful property? Why three lots when two lots would retain that rural feel?”

His response: “The city said it was a ‘condition’ for approval.” City of Ashland stated that because improvements were needed (paving, sidewalks, curb, gutter, underground utilities, ect.) It was best served by developing the property to it’s fullest potential.

He stated that all along it was his intention to sell off the back lot and keep the front portion as is. Within his explanation, I felt as if he had been coerced. I do not have a copy of his original plan. It consisted of removing driveway from Tolman Creek and creating a flag drive on Black Oak to service parcel 1 and 2, with a separate driveway for parcel 3.

1167 Tolman Creek Rd Warranty Deed

Statutory Warranty Deed

Statutory Warranty Deed

1167 Tolman Creek Rd Warranty Deed

This exhibit is part of a bigger property dispute.

Home was purchased by family members after death of mother. (May 21, 2003. 91 years old).

When Evelyn fell ill, it was decided by her family to put the house on the market and move her to California to live with her daughter Mary and son-in-law Michael – The Jacobson’s.

I made a promise to her that I would take care of her property until it was sold. It was listed, price was too high, home was in poor condition and it did not sell.

In May 2003, Evelyn died. Soon afterwards the Jacobsons began paying me to maintain the property and a friendship began. I assisted with an estate sale and even had keys to the house to assist with a remodel and prep work to make the house marketable.

Then Michael  and Mary  Jacobson of San Jose, California   decided to purchase the property and in Dec 2003 it was finalized.

There was never any intention to move to Ashland. Instead, they were going to take advantage of Ashland’s market values and they immediately began a planning action (PA 2004-058) for a land partition to divide the property into 3 parcels.

Photos – Tree Crushes Woman’s House / Car In Ashland, Oregon

Car and House crushed By Giant Ponderosa Pine Tree

 

Ashland, OR Tree Damages House and Car

If a property dispute wasn’t bad enough, now this happened. Major damage to the house and Chevy Tahoe and no resolution in sight. Worst of all, the City Administrator told us that if we had know that the tree would have fell beforehand, due to the tree ordinances and the fact it wasn’t on the property, the only way to remedy the situation would have been to illegally cut it down.

Here’s the pictures of the damage:

Continue reading

City of Ashland Refuses To Fix Electrical Problem

City of Ashland Refuses To Fix Electrical Problem

Note: the problem has since been fixed. Don’t know what made them change their mind, but they came back and did everything.

So after the tree fell and completely wrecked the house, a piece of wood was found embedded deep where the underground electric runs. A call was made to both the City of Ashland and the call before you dig people. The City of Ashland shows up and states that this is serious and that they are going to have to return the next day with more people and equipment to get the piece of wood out.

 

City Of Ashland Then Refuses To Help

The next day there was a phone call. The City of Ashland was now stating that it wasn’t their problem, and that the burden to test and repair lies on the property owner. The one problem? There’s an ongoing property line dispute and technically the electric is on the neighbors property, even though it’s on our side of the fence!

But yet the city was very persistent that even though it wasn’t on our property, it still was our property. But are we even allowed to dig up somebody else’s property to get to our property and repair it? The whole thing doesn’t make sense.

When City of Ashland came out and was shown the maps of the property and property line dispute, the city employee basically said “Oh, shit!” jumped in his vehicle and left.

 

It has since been resolved. I guess that means it was a city issue afterall?