Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />variance under the provisions set forth by law and that granting him <br />a variance would not result in adverse affects to the neighboring <br />community. Melito argued that the board did not properly consider <br />the statutory requirements for variance requests, but focused on en- <br />forcement issues related to a prior use of his property. The appeals <br />court found this argument without merit. <br />The appeals court found that the board made its decision after <br />considering testimony froin several neighbors and experts and the <br />concerns voiced by board members during a lengthy hearing process. <br />Some examples of the opposing testimony included that of the own- <br />er of an undeveloped adjacent lot who had a pending application for <br />the construction of four homes. This property owner testified that <br />only three feet would separate the proposed residences from the au- <br />tomobile repair garage, and that any two-story home built on his lot <br />would have a direct view of appellant's automobile repair shop due <br />to the topography of the lots. <br />In addition, the township's master plan called for the continuation <br />of the residential character of the area, and the board found that al- <br />lowing a repair shop on Melito's property would create a "substan- <br />tial negative" .in terms of noise and pollution and adverse impact po- <br />tential new homeowners on the aforementioned adjacent lot. <br />Courts generally would not disturb the decision of an administra- <br />tive zoning board if there was evidence in the record to support its <br />decision. Because the record showed that the board's decision was <br />not arbitrary, capricious, or illegal, the appeals court affirmed the <br />decision of the lower court. <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />116 <br /> <br />.,.------. <br /> <br />j <br />.~/ <br />