Nonconforming Uses, aka; Grandfathered Use in Zoning

nonconforming use is generally defined as a land use or structure that was legal when established but does not conform to the standards of the current zoning ordinance. The term“nonconforming use” actually covers several situations, including nonconforming uses, lots and structures.

Pre-existing land uses that do not conform to current zoning are not favored. The ultimate goal of zoning is to achieve uniformity of property uses within each zoning district. At the same time, landowners have made investments in their businesses and buildings, and it would be unfair — not to mention illegal in some states — to require immediate termination or removal. Rather than require the immediate elimination of these preexisting uses, the zoning ordinance will outline a set of conditions for the continued existence of nonconforming uses.

Although state courts apply different interpretations to local zoning codes regarding nonconforming uses, the expansion, enlargement or intensification of a nonconforming use in almost all cases can be regulated or prohibited.

Resumption of a nonconforming use or structure after it has been destroyed may be prohibited in some states. In other states the right to re-establish the nonconforming use exists. Zoning ordinances traditionally have set a specific threshold– for example, a percentage of assessed value — for defining what constitutes destruction, and courts generally defer to the stated threshold. Again, the principle is to allow landowners to continue to reap the benefits of investments made in their properties. If those investments have been destroyed, however, the community may or may not have an obligation to allow a landowner to reinvest in a use prohibited by current zoning.

To prevent nonconforming uses from becoming blighted properties, zoning codes generally do allow for routine maintenance and repair, so long as such activities do not constitute expansion or enlargement.

Once a nonconforming use has been abandoned, its resumption can be prohibited. Most ordinances state a time period, usually six months to a year, that creates a presumption of abandonment if the property is not used for that period. Some states do not allow just a passage of time to establish abandonment. The issue of what constitutes abandonment is one that is generally the subject of much state court case law, with some courts requiring that an “intent to abandon” be shown before the nonconforming use is considered to be terminated. The intent to abandon may be something like a list of criteria, in the zoning ordinance, from which “abandoned” is established from a preponderance of facts about the particular situation.

Gary D. Taylor,

Iowa State University

6-1-2002 Original Property Layout
Original Property Layout Lots 1-6 equals six 1/2 lots.
after redevelopment aerial shot (569x291).jpg
Conlee’s nonconforming property redevelopment after completed.

The Law of Nonconforming Uses

via The Law of Nonconforming Uses

 

 

in the circled area Value is handwritten $40,880 Fee $ is blank. The issue date at the top is 7-12-2004. Complainant had only noticed that this permit was invalid due to no Builders signature. Clearly Building Administrator Holland was intentionally negligent at least for his lack of oversight and pre-approval of issuance of this permit
0005Celeste Cirinna, City of Montrose Exec Manager.pptx
Original building permit altered to conflict with the information contained in the letter written by Lee County Extension Agent Bob Dodds.

Former Lee County Attorney Michael Short and Chief of Police Brent Shipman make a well formed militia, no way justice was going to be served.

         I am searching for any civil cases in which the plaintiff has filed a civil complaint alleging trespassing against the private party. I want to see any civil cases in which the plaintiff has filed multiple counts of fraud against another person. I want to see any legal action in which the plaintiff has filed a civil case alleging the defendant has committed a criminal offense. I came across the document above when I believe Lee County Detective Bob Conlee was attempting to set me up for a drug bust. If you would review Lee County Attorney Michael Short . Short  advised me that “he” would decide who gets prosecuted in Lee County, Iowa. He wasn’t kidding he was willing and did everything needed to protect Mark Conlee in his unprecedented illegal actions against his neighbor.
Most of you have the common knowledge of the laws and rules a Sheriff has the duty to provide to the citizens in their County described below. I am still waiting for the results of an investigation into my allegations as stated by then County Attorney Mike Short and current Lee County Sheriff Stacy Weber. Weber has a conflict of interest that is next to none according to the record. He certainly learned from the best of the best as former County Detective Bob Conlee is described as his mentor. His reason for getting into law enforcement as a career choice.
Working with Federal and State Legislatures to create laws providing safer communities

The SHERIFF is the only elected Law Enforcement Officer in the State of Iowa.

THE DUTIES OF SHERIFF INCLUDE:

  • Execution and return of all legal civil papers
  • Enforce the law of the State of Iowa
  • Enforce County Ordinances
  • Conduct criminal investigations
  • Provide Law Enforcement services to the Judicial Court System
  • Supervise all jails and the custody of incarcerated offenders
  • Maintain the Sex Offender Registry
  • Patrol all areas of the county
  • Respond to any and all disasters within the county
  • Assist other Law Enforcement agencies
  • Sustain Iowa VINE for Victims
Mr. Short failed the citizens of Lee County to a serious degree beginning in filing two criminal complaints against me on behalf of his number one colleague Detective Bob Conlee and his brother, Mark Conlee. The complaints were clearly frivolous and fabricated.  There is no existing law against giving the middle finger to another person.
6-26-2007 State vs Boatner, second Complaint on Conlees behalf .jpg
Harassment, (simple misdemeanor) defendant with intent annoy another person by flipping the middle finger, continuously.                                                                                                                  County Attorney and Chief Shipman are acting as puppets on Mr. Conlee’s behalf. Denies legitimate allegation with hard evidence supporting Conlee was continuously applying chemicals  unlawfully to Boatners property with intent to cause serious harm.

 

 

7-2-2007 summons State of Iowa vs Melody Boatner .jpg

This is an example of the standard procedure followed in any action in this “criminal” case. There was no local government official willing to honor their ethical oath. They were all completely devoted to Mark Conlee’s goal to acquire his goal. It was like they were hypnotized. I know full well that the County attorney should know what is a criminal violation and what is a fabricated law. Chief Shipman scratched out the last sentence as I advised him there was no law preventing a citizen from having two licensed, insured vehicles on their private property. Mark Conlee used his position as council member to push past any recognition of ethical standards. I feel like I have been raped by these public servants. I will never be the person I was prior to the physical assault by this gang.in their quest to acquire my property. No holds barred, they were intent on this goal. I was unable to assert my rights to save my life.

Violation of Federal law. This situation is not difficult to understand.

Sheriff Weber recently told me there has been an investigation into my allegations since May 1st. The only thing that I am aware of that has happened is the city clerk still participating the the conspiracy to cover up the evidence of the City officials implicating themselves by taking down the City’s webpage that had the min of the meeting since 2005.

This situation is not difficult to understand.

Mark Conlee, brother of Lee County Detective Bob Conlee purchased the legally non conforming property from Mayor Dinwiddie. He began redeveloping the property by tearing down the existing single car garage, trucking in enough fill dirt to elevate the property in some areas 10′ higher than before, he constructed a nonconforming 2 story oversized garage. He altered the roof surface from standard procedure by turning it so it diverted storm water runoff directly onto my property, he changed the grade of the fill dirt so all storm water ran onto my property. My property lost value of $10,000 just because the drainage was forseeable going to cause my property uncontrollable flooding. In questioning this illegal structure I was advised Conlee intended to build a living quarters in the upper level. Standard procedure requires drain tile to be installed around the base of the slab, it was not. Standard procedure requires gutter and downspout to be installed and directed to the city drainage ditch, it was directed directly to divert storm water from the massive roof onto my property.

The following spring there was a suspicious fire that supposedly destroyed the existing trailer. Suspicious to me because the only firemen on the scene that morning were Mayor Dinwiddie, building official/fire chief Mark Holland, Mark Conlee and the son of Mark Holland. The son, Jake was a former resident of the Conlee property, we discussed the fire after the fact. I discovered that only 2 weeks prior there was a trailer fire at a nearby mobile home park that was caused by the same M.O. I understand my testimony is not acceptable but several weeks prior to the fire after his new garage was finished he came over to my yard and gave a friend who was with me a message from his brother in Fla. At that time I asked him, “now that you have that nice new garage what are you going to do with the trailer, he said he wanted it to burn. I was still understanding he was going to build a living quarters in the second level of the garage. The morning of the fire, there was no fire alarm that went off, being 1 block from my house I was always awakened by the siren. That morning I was awakened by the clanging of the fire hose being connected to the hydrant on my corner of the street. The only fireman who acted in an attempt to extinguish any fire was the son, Jake Holland. The other 3 on the scene did nothing but stand on the sidewalk the entire time and chat. Jake got the hose connected and was motioned to lay it down. There was no action physical action made to extinguish any fire. After some amount of time an hour or so Mark Conlee puts on the hazard uniform and enters the home. He exits about 5 minutes later empty-handed and gives the others still on the sidewalk a nod. They continue to stand on the sidewalk for another hour or so. Jake puts the equipment away and they go on about their day. I find it suspicious that Dinwiddie and Holland did not go to their regular job that morning. Conlee went to work and was called home. There was no smoke coming from the building, there was nothing telling that a fire had happen to the building after it was over.

Conlee almost immediately builds a new home. There is no question that the building permit is illegal. He changed the frontage of the home to now be the alley, that is illegal. The roof surface is also altered from standard procedure just as the garage and directed to divert storm water directly onto my property. I advised Conlee that we needed a ditch, reasonably to run directly down the common boundary since he was the one who had the new redevelopment that caused the problems to my property. He was unwilling to have it on his property, the man I was going to barter upholstery for excavating a ditch backed out fearing a liability if he happened to get on Conlee property since there had been no survey, only a verbal agreement on the common boundary. Conlee illegally removed an existing berm that had been put in place by the original owners of both property for the sole purpose of protecting my home structure from storm water runoff from the Conlee property when the original home burnt prior to 1972 when they brought in the mobile home. Berm and swale were commonly used at that time for this purpose. The berm was on the Conlee side of the common boundary, the swale was on my side of the common boundary. The building officials refused to address my concerns, his duty is to oversee property redevelopment is in compliance with State building and drainage laws. When he refused to come to the location I contacted Lee County Ext, agent Robert Dodds, he did come to the location and took some photos. I had many questions I showed him the building permit which lacked the signature of the builder Mark Conlee but was signed and approved by the building official. Mr. Dodds noticed some other discrepancies on that building permit. He questioned why years before when he built a garage he had to pay a pretty significant amount for the fee charge of his building permit. Mark Conlee had paid no fee according to the permit. He explained that in regards to storm water drainage and property development you are not allowed to divert more storm water to the neighboring property than before the redevelopment. He sent a copy of the letter to Mayor Dinwiddie allow with drainage laws. Dinwiddie had no regard for this expert opinion. When all other times any opinion from Mr. Dodd has held high regard with the city of Montrose.

I hired attorney Steve Swan to sue the city of Montrose. Retired Sheriff’s officer, John Farmer referred Swan to me. John worked for the city of Montrose prior to moving up to the sheriff’s dept. He is well aware of the characters who hold positions in Montrose. I met with Swan and he advised me that John Farmer had briefed him on the case, John told him that I did not have many financial resources. I had been self-employed as an upholsterer since I purchased my property in 1995. I was never without work, but I basically charged what I needed to pay my bills, explains why I had a backlog of work for over a year at all times. Swan also advised me that he had spoken to Lee County Detective Bob Conlee, Bob had already lied to him when he told him his brother never trucked in any fill dirt but poured the new slabs just as the property existed. He advised me that my case was a tort case and we would sue both parties, Conlee and the city. He asked if I would be willing to barter upholstering his vehicle for his service. I willingly took him up on that offer, I was so moved by his kindness I had to pull over on the highway because I was crying with gratitude. The following day I received a copy of a letter of intent he sent to Conlee the previous afternoon. The letter demanded Conlee remedy the nuisance drainage problem in 10 day or he would file an injunction against him. Conlee began removing the existing evidence of the berm and its height, he built a little roof over the door on the side of his house as if he had not changed the frontage of his property.

I emailed Swan multiple times on the 10th day telling him to file the injunction. I never heard another word from him and he filed no injunction to stop work.

Soon after this, a rash developed on my shins, I referred to it as a rash because that was what it appeared to be to me. I thought perhaps an allergic reaction to something. I had never had any problems prior to this with my skin, I had never even have poison ivy.The itch was intense, nothing similar to a bug bite. I had used a push lawnmower since I purchased my place, I did that for cardio, and in fact I never wanted a riding lawn mower. The next time I went out to mow I noticed that the neighbor had applied something to my side of the common boundary. I had never been exposed to what I assumed was weed killer. I had not changed my routine for 10 years. It seemed reasonable that whatever this neighbor was apply to my side only of the common boundary could possibly be the cause of what had now rapidly spread over other parts of my body. I told him and the new police chief that day not to apply anything to my property and explained I thought it could be the cause of my skin eruptions. I requested an incident report from the police chief.

By this time my opinion of Mr. Conlee’s character was less than honorable. He knew my property was flooding, my foundation had been damaged and he was unwilling to allow me to have a ditch dug down the common boundary. He continued using the chemicals without hesitation as routine yard maintenance applying them to my property only. I kept requesting the incident report from Chief Shipman and he kept coming up with excuses as to why he did not have it for me, a witness says he was lying about the reason he did not have it. When I did receive it 16 months later the first on was not satisfactory in detail, I told him no that I wanted one with the details. A week later he gave me a half-hearted report. By this time my rash had become a severe skin condition. My entire body was raw. The pain was excruciating, it was unbearable to wear clothes.

I had requested a trespassing complaint be file on my behalf early on. Every request denied by the City and Lee County Attorney. The chemicals now had become a weapon with intent to cause me serious injury. The fact that I was denied equal protection of the law and access to the courts make this a conspiracy deprivation of rights under color of law.

It became clear to me the reason Conlee would not stop applying chemicals to my property when I realized he was unable to get the illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map.

Lee County attorney Mike Short suggested mitigation two years in a row, I was willing. Even sent my report in the mail to the mitigation service. However Mark Conlee was not. He knew his illegal redevelopment would be order to be removed. return the lot back to the original state. His excuse the first year was because he had paid an attorney to represent him in a civil case he filed against me. In that case the judge dismissed his case citing my right to enjoy my property. I put up a privacy curtain and Mr. Conlee believing my backyard was his backyard because he changed the frontage of his home to face the alley was offended by the curtain. I knew I was well within my rights. I always know the law before I ever act. I felt a sense of relief by the judge’s ruling. My right to enjoy my property in my mind meant no more chemicals on my property either. I was wrong about what the ruling meant to Mark Conlee and Chief of Police Brent Shipman. They approached me in my yard one day and Conlee advised me he was going to my the railroad ties I had legally placed down my side of the common boundary to divert the storm water toward the city drainage ditch. I advised him if he had a problem with the boundary line he would need to file another civil complaint. I question Brent Shipman as what was purpose of him being with Conlee. He advised me that he was acting as a witness that Conlee was telling me ahead of time that he was going to alter my property. At that point I advised them both that I intended to invoke my second amendment right. I advised Chief Shipman never to knock on my door again. I headed to the house to get my weapon, you never saw two adults run up a hill so fast.

Imagine now, here I am, my body completely raw, trying to meet deadlines for my upholstery clients and having to defend my property every afternoon from 3:30pm the rest of the night.

I retrieved my weapon, a single shot long arm pellet gun and stood guard on my property till way past dark. I had to have some rest, I had other responsibilities so I went in the house and laid down to sleep a bit. When I woke up the next morning I went out to check the boundary line. Sure enough Conlee had moved the railroad ties I placed to protect my property. I had them held in place with staubs. I had new lawn edging put in place and the railroad ties were pushed every which way. The staubs were broken off, the edging pull out of the ground and just laying there. My skin condition was full body, I was terrified to go near that boundary in the first place, I have never felt so violated in my life. This was done in contempt of a court order. I called the only authority of the law available Chief Shipman and told him I wanted to file a trespassing complaint against Conlee. He asked me if I saw him do it. I told him he was the witness that Conlee was going to do it. It was complete violation of my rights. It was a conspiracy.

I again contacted Lee County attorney Mike Short, he advised me that he doesn’t let neighbors file complaints against each other because it never stops. Yet I was charged by the State and City several times on fabricated laws and ordinances on Conlee’s behalf. I never even got into the courtroom. Conlee did not even show up. I was told by Montrose Deputy Judd that Conlee was on vacation in Fla. What kind of public servants are these people. What kind of people conspire with intent to cause serious injury to anyone? Narcissists are described as these kind of people. It only take one narcissist to manipulate a group of people into believing anything they say. With every complaint that was dismissed against me the more aggressive the City, on Conlee’s behalf, became to find me guilty of a crime. Public record has a discussion about it. The council and Mayor discuss going to speak with the judge. What does that mean? Offer him a bribe? The judge knew the laws. The judge knew what wasn’t against the law. What else would they feel they needed to speak to him about?

Well the reality set in after 5 years of being abused by my local government officials, committing criminal acts against me. I had by this time lost my eyesight, unable to read, unable to recognized people, I was terrified. A neighbor using chemical weapons with intent to cause serious injury is defined as terrorist acts. If he is capable of doing this what would he not do to eliminate me? These government officials conspired to commit terrorist acts against me. Deprived me of my rights under color of law, committed a conspiracy against my rights as well as defamed my character and fabricated ordinances and laws in an attempt to cause me financial harm.

Mark Conlee had to have my property to ever get his illegal redevelopment recorded on the county plat map and he decided the action to take was to eliminate me. I had two options one was to shoot him dead or flee and seek justice according to the law. I mistakenly chose the latter option. To date I have gotten little if any interest in my story. I am sure if the right person gets to read this action will be taken and justice will be served. But how long? The City and Prosecuting attorney had the duty not to let this happen in the first place.

One other thing I want to mention in regard to Mayor Dinwiddie and his property. Several years ago a woman spoke to the city council about opening a tattoo shop in a building that was available, the council discussed this and they did not think a tattoo shop would represent the city as they wanted it to be represented. It was only a short time later that a different woman spoke to the council about opening a tattoo shop in a building she intended to purchase from Mayor Dinwiddie, the city council was all for this new business in town. What is the difference? Mayor Dinwiddie would receive a personal financial gain just as he did when Conlee purchased the legally nonconforming lot from him.

Attorney Steve Swan conspired with Conlee in violation of his oath to represent his clients best interest

Lee County Attorney Mike Short conspired with Mark Conlee by denying me equal protection of the law, access to the court, and terrorist acts. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.

Lee County Detective conspired with Mark Conlee in misrepresenting his authority to be that of a building official, he was acting without jurisdiction, he defamed my character and knowingly made false statements associating me with illegal drug activity. Conspiracy against rights under color of law.

The most recent act of conspiracy was when Sheriff Stacy Weber advised the city clerk that there was an investigation that initiated City clerk Celeste Cirinna took down the City of Montrose website that contained the minutes of the council meeting and evidence of these officials implicating themselves to suppress the evidence. I have copies of all the meeting minutes.

City clerk Celeste Cirinna committed multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy against rights. But Lee County attorney refused to prosecute any of these criminal offenses. They already knew they could do anything and not be held accountable by local law enforcement. The evidence cannot be disputed, they have no defense.

What is not in violation of Federal law in this case is my question?

Melody Boatner

https://poisonedbymyneighborfromhell.com

This meeting minutes seems so relevant in the dumbing down of the citizens it in my opinion is ridiculous.

March 3, 2005                                                                                        PAGE 196

MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING

The Montrose City Council met for Regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the 3rd day of March 2005.  Council met at City Hall, 102 S. 2nd St. pursuant to law with Mayor Ronald Dinwiddie presiding and the following Council members present: Brisby, Holland, Junkins, and Slater.  Roberts was absent.

Call to Order. Regular meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.

Agenda. Moved by Holland, seconded by Slater to approve Agenda without Item No. 2 under New Business. All ayes. Motion declared carried.

Page 197     MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING        MARCH 3, 2005,      PAGE 2

Ordinance No. 191. Councilwoman Brisby says we had a building inspector at one time.  Dinwiddie says we don’t have one now because the City didn’t want to be responsible if they inspected a home and something happened. Brisby also states the City had a building code at one time. Dinwiddie says that code was from the 1980’s. We are now adopting the International Building Code. He says even if we don’t have a building inspector, if someone has a complaint the City could enforce the International Code.  Moved by Holland, seconded by Slater to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY AMENDING PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO CHAPTER 50 SO AS TO PROVIDE A NUISANCE CODE FOR NUISANCE ENFORCEMENT. Roll call voting 4-0.  Brisby, aye; Roberts, absent; Slater, aye; Junkins, aye; Holland, aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.

Ordinance No. 192. Moved by Holland, seconded by Brisby to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY ADOPTING THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. Roll call voting 3-1. Junkins, aye; Slater, nay; Brisby, aye; Roberts, absent; Holland, aye. Motion declared carried.

Ordinance No. 193. Moved by Holland, seconded by Junkins, to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY ADOPTING THE UNIFORM CODE ON ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS.  Roll call voting 4-0.  Roberts, absent; Brisby, aye; Holland, aye; Slater, aye; Junkins, aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.

Ordinance No. 194. Councilman Holland says the Fire Department doesn’t have the Fire Code books. They do not do inspections because of the liability. He says the City can ask the State Fire Marshal to inspect a building if needed. Moved by Holland, seconded by Brisby to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Roll call voting 4-0.

Slater, aye; Junkins, aye; Holland, aye; Roberts, absent; Brisby, aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.

Ordinance No. 195. Dinwiddie says the City is responsible for the trees between the sidewalk and the street. Moved by Holland, seconded by Junkins to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY AMENDING TREES. Roll call voting 3-1.  Holland, aye; Brisby, aye; Junkins, aye; Roberts, absent; Slater, any. Motion declared carried.

Hiring Police Chief. Clerk/Treasurer Cirinna says she received ten applications. All had been notified of the physical given by the Sheriff’s Office on March 10, 2005 at Central Lee. Council will meet at 5:00 p.m. on March 10, 2005 to review applications of the persons who have passed.

Dinwiddie went to the ILEA Records Requirement School. He says they realize not all towns hire a Police Chief the proper way. The City will now follow ILEA hiring standards. First there is a physical, the first interview, the MMPI and a second interview; all the while weeding out applicants.

Hiring Reserve Officers. Dinwiddie says we should wait. Kent Rubey concurred, saying we should wait until a Chief is hired.

Authors Note: The City ordinances code does include nuisance drainage ordinance. That code was never recognized when Mark Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment was diverting a significant amount more of stormwater onto my property, causing adverse effects to my property. Including uncontrollable flooding and loss of value.   The Mayor states the city could enforce the State uniform building code if needed. There was no effort to do that when Conlee was in violation. The Mayor is mistaken, the city is responsible for any damages due to negligence of the city. Any city who issues building permits, has an appointed building official (in this case Mark Holland) is obligated to oversee compliance to State building code and drainage laws. It is my opinion the Mayor was making this statement to dumb down the citizens attending this meeting. Are people really ignorant to believe these falsehoods? Are there no experts that have access to my posts. Nobody has an educated opinion. WTH is wrong with people who are silent when a brutal intentional attack has taken place against a neighbor, friend and fellow citizen? Any opinion is welcome. If anyone has evidence that a City can legally issue a building permit, have an appointed building official and not be responsible for damages occurred due to the building officials failure to address the concerns of a neighboring property owner, not review the building plans and assure compliance to State building code the show me what I do not know about. Just say something about any of the information I have and will continue to post. I believe the actions of my local government officials are criminal. In violation of my State and Federal Constitutional Rights. I am angry that nobody locally has answered even one of my questions. Now I am posting it publically and nobody has an opinion. GRRRR.

Evidence based on hearsay, “Mark Conlee says”

WITNESSES on my behalf

Evidence based on hearsay, “Mark Conlee says” when my evidence was hard copy documents, photos and witnesses described as “experts in their own right” and compelling list of witnesses in its own right.

APRIL 7, 2005,   PAGE 204     MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING                           PAGE 2        

1. Drainage ditch. Mark Conlee spoke with Council regarding runoff from his property  into a  neighbor’s yard. He says Craig Junkins dug a trench and all is well now.

a.  Standard procedure would be that the complainant would confirm whether an issue has been resolved.

b. Mark Conlee saying all is well now was far from the truth. Nothing had changed at all.

c. There was no excavation of a ditch in front of the Conlee property. Easily detected with the naked eye

d. The drainage problem was caused by the non conforming in size of the new structures and illegal change of the frontage of Conlee’s property. Easily detected with the naked eye.    

May-5-2005      MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING

2. Councilman Junkins said he talked to Mark Conlee and according to Mr.    Conlee his lawyer told him there wasn’t a problem.

a. Jeff Junkins has an existing conflict of interest as he is a fellow employee of Mark and Linda Conlee.

b. Junkins made this statement at a public meeting as if it were a fact, possibly giving the general public attending a false opinion of the law.

c. The lawyer Conlee is speaking of, is not a lawyer at all, he is misrepresenting his brother, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee to be a lawyer. Conlee did not seek legal advice from a licensed attorney until later in the year.

OCTOBER 6, 2005                                                                                                              MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING                                            

3. He (Mark Conlee) said her fence blew over during a recent storm.

a. Mark Conlee is lying about my curtain blowing over, had that of happened he would have had pictures for evidence

4. Conlee says there is a lot of traffic there.

a. Mark Conlee has no view of my driveway  from any spot on his property.

b. He fails to mention there is a 4 way stop on my corner. Everyone stops at that corner from any direction.  

c. He is defaming my character to be involved with illegal drug activity to collude with his brother’s, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee’s, defaming statements about my character.

d. The fact that I operated a successful upholstery business does bring clients to my home, however it’s not a lot of traffic. 

5. Conlee stated Mark Holland told him he could put a fence on his side of the line he shares with Melody Boatner.

a. By making this statement Conlee indicates Holland has responded to his questions.

b. In my complaints against Conlee’s redevelopment, Holland refused his appointed duty.

c. Holland stated that he had no intention of addressing my concerns about the nuisance drainage caused by the illegal redevelopment.

6. He  (Mark Conlee) says he has put weed killer on his side of the fence.

a. Photo evidence proves this is a false statement made by Mark Conlee

7. He states Melody Boatner has put a black curtain on an insecure structure.

a. I did put a privacy curtain up, however it was not insecure. I was well within my rights to install a privacy curtain. I have the right to enjoy my own property. However what I could control on my own property was very little without taking up arms. I have the right to take up arms to defend my property and my person. Being a reasonable person I expected the law to intervene they did, but not upholding the law, what they did was in violation of State and Federal law.

b. Mr. Conlee made a habit of hollering across the yard at me telling me that he was over the setbacks and such. Out of sight, out of mind. 

c. He would make sure my customers saw him by walking to the center of his yard by giving them an intense look of disapproval. This made my customers uneasy. His actions were not that of a reasonable normal person.

d. Had Conlee not been allowed to violate the law and change the frontage of his property to be the alley he may not have had the impression that my backyard was his backyard.  It is actually his side yard. He committed perjury in his  civil case against me stating he did not change the frontage of his property.

e. Conlee has no backyard to speak of as his entire property lot is filled with oversized structures that overfill his allotted space.

8. Conlee says Boatner has broken the law with her wording.

a.This is another false statement made in a public forum for the purpose of giving the community an unfavorable opinion of my character.

b. I was well within my right to post “Do not spray weed poison on my property.

c.The sign was on my property

9. Conlee says the black plastic on the lawn is a nuisance.

a. There is no ordinance stating black plastic is a nuisance, the material was not black plastic it was commercial landscape fabric.

10. The Conlee’s say they have never had words with her and they have done  nothing wrong. 

a. He has had words with me such as hollering across the yard to inform me that he was over the setbacks.

b.He along with the police chief acting as a witness advised me that he was going to violate the civil court ruling that cited my right to enjoy my property, by physically moving the landscape timbers I had placed on my side of the common boundary to divert the excessive stormwater runoff that he intentionally diverted onto my property.

c. They have violated every law in the book regarding redeveloping a legally nonconforming property.

d. However it is the duty of the City of Montrose to oversee that the redevelopment is compliant to State law.

e. The false statements he made to the public defaming my character were enough to give an unfavorable opinion of the general public, I was unable to wear clothes and was unable to function enough to publicly challenge him on his false statements. Not that I have the duty to hold him accountable to the law, that is the duty of law enforcement and the city.

 11. They were attacked with the writing on the curtain and are emotionally upset.

 a. This is not even debateable, I had every right to post “do not spray” and to install a      privacy curtain

b. At the time there was no city fence ordinance.

c. I was physically and emotionally and financially destroyed by the intentional terrorist acts committed against me by Mark Conlee and his conspirators of local government authorities. Using chemicals as a weapon is according to law an act of terrorism.

d. My right to equal protection of the law was violated by the criminal offenses                 committed by Conlee and the other officials who acted on his behalf.

e. Evidence shows Conlee was actually advised by Mayor Dinwiddie not to encroach      on the property line, to set the fence back from it. Conlee did not take Mayor                Dinwiddies advice. Conlee installed his wooden fence with the wrong side out,              however no person ever made him do it correct and compliant to State building          code.

e. Conspiracy against rights and Deprivation of rights under color of law. Both of             which are violations of Federal law.

 Authors note:

 12. According to Chief of Police Brent Shipman the reason he acted as a witness that                Mark Conlee gave me advance verbal notice that he was going to violate the civil                court order was because “Mark Conlee told him” that the wooded staubs I had put as        markers  36″ away from the common boundary were survey markers. 

  •   a. Police Chief told me this several hours after he acted as a witness for Conlee       giving me advanced verbal notice
  •         b. Who would take a man’s word for something knowing there was a civil                        dispute between the parties involved
  •         c. Police Chief also advised me that Mark Conlee told him that I had paid for                   half of the survey. Complete fabrication, Conlee stated in court that he was                 going to have a survey done, he never did. I certainly did not pay for half of               it.
  •         d. How ignorant for any reasonable adult to believe a survey marker is made                 from wood, wood rots. Survey markers are metal and do not rot away.
  •        e. It is hard to decide if Shipman is fabricating this information about Conlee or            if Conlee actually told his this fabricated story. Chief Shipman had issues with            being truthful early on in his short career as City of Montrose Police Chief. He            was given the option of resigning and the City would give him a favorable                  recommendation at whatever department hired him next or he would be                    terminated for ethical violations.  He slipped his resignation under the door                of City Hall. He was hired as an officer in the Quad Cities, I believe Davenport            but not positive. The staubs are 1½” X 8″ commonly used by construction                    companies. 
  • f. On one of the occasions when the city charged me with frivolous charges Officer Shipman was in the courtroom and made the statement that “he was       wrangled into filing the complaint against me.” The city attorney immediately   requested the judge to dismiss the case and the City of Montrose, Ia would pay   all court fees. I never had to utter one word.

 

 

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Source: 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute