7 ms·
They didn't say he increased the number of vehicles, rather they argued he was using existing trucks as storage which violated some other ordinance. I'm guessi
by tyingq 3y ago
They didn't say he increased the number of vehicles, rather they argued he was using existing trucks as storage which violated some other ordinance. I'm guessing they tried Google maps, which didn't pan out because the number hadn't increased. So they wanted more detail to find more technicalities.
- eddyg 3y agoThat’s not how I read it: “significantly increased the scope of the junk cars and other junk material being kept on their property,” as determined by “aerial photographs.” “scope” reads to me as “amount” (in violation of the agreement).
- tyingq 3y agoThey use "scope" rather than "count" or something more clear because they never use an actual count showing the number of vehicles being higher, which would be straightforward. They mention the trailers being used as storage, and phrases like "significant increase in the amount of junk". Note "junk" as opposed to "vehicles". The original settlement isn't easy to find, but you can find this document from the township...their answer to the homeowner claiming unreasonable search/seizure: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49bcc0/siteassets/case-documents/briefs/msc/2022-2023/164948/164948_105_01_answer.pdf https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49bcc0/siteassets/case-docum...