Fate of disputed park to be decided by judge

Published 12:00 am Thursday, February 7, 2002

A dispute over a title registration of tax-forfeited land between the county and neighboring residents was left to a judge’s ruling after a hearing Wednesday.

Thursday, February 07, 2002

A dispute over a title registration of tax-forfeited land between the county and neighboring residents was left to a judge’s ruling after a hearing Wednesday.

Email newsletter signup

The one-acre parcel of land beside Fountain Lake, called Bayview Park, has been a hot spot for a couple of years. While the residents are claiming the land is a public park, the county filed a petition to the district court to remove any hindrance for using the property for a residential purpose.

Facing a contesting motion by the residents, the county recently filed a motion for summary judgment that asked Judge John Chesterman to determine if the court will authorize the registration or bring the issue to a trial.

The area was developed by Shoreland Inc. as residential blocks after the second World War. The company kept the land to place a pumping station with a green area. The county forfeited the land in 1991 as a result of a default in property tax payment.

The problem is the county does not consider the land a park because it has never been registered so, while the residents disagree and claim their easements.

In the hearing, one plaintiff, William R. Sturtz, emphasized the use of the land as a park by the residents entitles them some rights including the easement over the property, and the tax forfeiture cannot extinguish such rights.

Sturtz also claimed that the original plat designates the land as a park. &uot;The county is trying to take the interests of the people away from the park,&uot; he said.

The county submitted a memorandum pointing out that the land was not dedicated as a park in every aspect. The name, Bayview Park, was assigned by the developer as an attractive way of designating the pump-house area on the plat, according to the memorandum.

In addition, it states that the way the residents use the land is not for active recreational purpose but for aesthetic enjoyment, which cannot create a prescriptive easement.

The issue involves the county’s need to sell the land and recover its tax base, and the residents’ desire to maintain the neighborhood landscape and to avoid a potential depreciation of their property value.

An evaluation of the land by the county assessor puts its value at $14,400. The county has held public auctions twice in the past, but nobody bid on the property. After the first auction, three investors purchased the parcel in 1993 but gave up the development because of the unclear land-use stipulation.