Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2008

Home

April 25, 20081 Volume 21 No.8 ally, "anew") and allowed the court to "take evidence." The court concluded that the governing statute allowed the court to take evi- dence if it appeared to the court that testimony was necessary for the proper conclusion of the matter. The court held that it was not per- mitted to make new factual findings on issues that were before the board for decision. The court next concluded that the board's grant of the special ex- ception was proper because substantial evidence supported the find- ing that property values would not be substantially diminished. Al- though no expert testimony had been given to the board on property values, the court found this was not fatal as such expert testimony was not required by state law. The court held that the board could rely on commonsense inferences drawn from evidence relating to other issues. The court found the board had done so by looking at crime, aesthetics, traffic, the existing rental market, as well as testi- mony by a neighbor of the existing transient house that neighbor- hood property values had not been adversely affected by that use and by an urban planner that national research showed property values did not necessarily go down when transient housing was introduced to a neighborhood. See also: Buchholz v. Board of Adjustment of Bremer County, 199 N.W2d 73 (Iowa 1972); Miller v. Hill, 337 Ill. App. 3d 210,271 Ill. Dec. 600, 785 N.E.2d 532 (3d Dist. 2003) Variance-Owners seek area variances for existing fence and parking lot Town denies variance for fence and imposes condition on granting of area variances for parking lot Citation: Voetsch v. Craven, 852 N. Y.S.2d 225 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008) NEW YORK (02/13/08)-John Voetsch owned a building in the city. He paved and expanded the existing parking lot and installed a four-foot high stockade fence on the two property lines shared with his lot. In 1995, the property was rezoned as a professional business district and the town required Voetsch obtain a building permit for the parking lot, which he did. In 2003, the town building inspector notified Voetsch that the 1995 permit had been issued in error be- cause Voetsch had not complied with the town ordinances applicable i to property in a professional business district. The town told Voetsch . he needed to apply for area variances for the stockade fence and the parking lot. 11 41