Laserfiche WebLink
196 <br /> <br /> ~ 9 "" <br />Page 8 June t0, _00, <br /> <br /> MacNeish, owner of the parcel to the east, wrote a letter to the Board of <br />Adjustment indicating that he would have no problem with the 4-foot variance <br />to the garage. It was noted that other residences in the area had been granted <br />side yard setback variances. <br /> Voss was the owner to the west. He appeared at the hearing and 'spoke <br />against the variance, claiming his house would be only 23 feet from Plach's <br />home if the variance was granted, while there would be about 30 feet between <br />Plach's and MacNeil's home. <br /> The board approved the variance by one vote. The notice of the decision <br />included a statement providing that "owning to special conditions, a literal <br />enforcement of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unnecessary <br />hardship, the variance requested will be consistent with the spirit or purpose of <br />the ordinance, the variance will do substantial justice, and will not be contrary <br />to the public interest." <br /> The Vosses appealed, but the lower court a~zrmed the board,s decision. <br />The court stated that such variances abounded in the area, and the interest of <br />public safety would be furthered. <br /> The Vosses appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Reversed and remanded. <br /> There was insufficient evidence of unnecessary hardship. <br /> The evidence di~t not support the board's decision that a strict enforcement <br />of the ordinance would restilt in a substantial hardship. The court also ques- <br />tioned how the board analyzed the effect on public interests by ~anting the <br />variance. <br /> The court noted the burden was not on the objector to prove there was no <br />need for a variance. Even if the Vosses had not objected, Plach would still be <br />obligated to prove an unnecessary hardship. Here, there was no evidence pre- <br />sented that smaller dimensions of the house would deny Plach a reasonable use <br />of his property. <br /> Assuming that a hardship was established, the board would then have to <br />prove the variance did not harm the <br />public interest. The court determined <br />the board did not provide sufficient <br />evidence. <br /> <br />Citation: Voss v. Wmtshara Count. <br />Board of Adjustment, Co,trt of <br />Appeals of Wisconsi~,, Dist. 4, No. <br />02-1307 (2003). <br /> <br />see also: Sr~yder v. Waukesha CotmW, <br />247 N.W. 2d 98 (1976). <br /> <br />see also: State v. Kenosha Board of <br />Adjustment, 577 N. ~2d 813 (1998). <br /> <br /> <br />