Sinnott files lawsuit over driveway
Original post made on Nov 22, 2013
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, November 22, 2013, 9:11 AM
on Nov 22, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Did Sinnott receive the permit before buying the investment property? I assume one must own the property first, which to me means that he has no claim to losing $500K in value.
on Nov 22, 2013 at 3:28 pm
A quick clarification for anonymous - the vehicular access to Louise has always existed. A dirt driveway from my property over the unpaved portion to the paved portion of Louise existed for most of the history of Louise Street. I purchased the property with that access. We have used the access and not been sighted. That use included vehicles driving through the double driveway gates that probably date back to the 1930's. The previous owner of my property has submitted a sworn affidavit that he too used the driveway before it was blocked by the neighbors installation of their private parking without any required permits. They have since been forced to remove the parking.
The encroachment permit was needed only to pave the driveway, not to establish its existence. A similar permit was granted in 1984. These permits are never subject to a public hearing.
By proceeding with the abandonment the City is attempting to eliminate a vehicular access that exists. This taking without compensation is part of the basis for the $500,000 claim.
on Nov 22, 2013 at 5:31 pm
This lawsuit was as predictable as the sunrise.