Sunday, October 3, 2010
Both the 1984 ordinance and the 2006 one are substantively the same. The ramp lot was zoned to allow only use for a single family residence and far any accessory uses. Accessory use was defined as a use which is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the structure. The court held that the easements were not incidental to the primary use of the ramp lot as a single family residence. The ownership of the ramp lot and the easements were totally independent of each other. The court found that this was different than a single family homeowner giving revocable, temporary permission to friends and family to periodically access the lake. The landowners argued that the use of the ramp predated the ordinances and thus that the pre-existing use was grandfathered in under the ordinances. However, the court noted that the prior use was of a totally different character, and did not involve perpetual easements, so the court rejected the argument.