Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin the denial of the conditional use permit. The decision of the lower ') court was affirmed. See also: Vulcan Materials Co. v. Guilford County Bd. of County Com'rs, 115 N.C. App. 319, 444 S.E.2d 639 (1994). Zoning Decision-Neighbor challenges board's finding that lot is 'corner' lot Says right-of-way does not qualify as 'street' as required by ordinance Citation: Schmoll v. Dines, 2007 WL 4394905 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) INDIANA (12/18/07)-Dines owned property located on the cor- ner of Bote Drive and Glenwood Beach Trail in the town of Por- ter. Under the town's ordinance, a corner lot was a lot "which [was] situated at the intersection of two streets; the interior angle of such intersection not exceeding one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees." The ordinance further defined a "street" as "a public right of way, which afford[ed] a primary means of access to abut- ting property." The owner of a corner lot could elect either street as the lot front line. In 2005, Dines submitted an application for a building permit. The permit was approved, with the use of Glenwood Beach Trail as the front lot line. Schmoll owned a tract of land on Glenwood Beach Trail that abutted Dines' property. He objected to the build- ing permit, arguing that the approved site plan violated minimum setbacks regulations and that Bote Drive was the only street that could legally be used for the frontage line. The board of zoning appeals held a hearing, and, ultimately, it upheld the permit. The board determined that Dines' property was a "corner lot" pursuant to the zoning ordinance and, therefore, Dines could elect which street would serve as the front lot line for his proposed building. Schmoll filed a petition in court asking for review of the board's decision. After hearing testimony from both sides, the trial court affirmed the board's decision to uphold the permit, and Schmoll appealed. Decision: Affirmed. The court reviewed the decision of the zoning board to deter- mine whether it was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. A 6 134 ~\ ) 'j)