Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009

Home

~...---~ ( '\) /~ ( ) Zoning Bulletin June 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 11 The Board denied the Wohrles' r~quested variances. The Board's deni- al was based on its finding that the granting of variances to the Wohrles would not be in conformance with the county zoning ordinance (the "Ordinance") or Iowa Code ("I.e.") ~ 67-6516. Under I.C. ~ 67-6516, a county board Of commissioners could approve a variance request only if the applicant showed he or she would suffer: (1) "undue hardship be- cause ,of the characteristics of the site;" and (2) "that the variance [wa] s not in conflict with the 'public interest." The Ordinance had similar re- quirements. The Board found that an undue hardship did exist. How- ever, it also found that issuing the variance would not be in the public interest because it would: (1) allow construction within the required set- back and within the lakebed; (2) was not necessary to accommodate the recreational use of the property; and (3) would serve to legitimize the Wohrles' construction of decks without required building permits, which would be considered a special privilege not afforded to other properties. The Wohrles appealed, and the district court reversed the Board's. decision. The county appealed. DECISION: Board's decision affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Idaho held. that: (1) substantial evi- dence supported the Board's denial of the variance request because the Wohrles could not show that the variance would not be in conflict with the public interest; and (2) the Board's denial of the variance requests did not prejudice the Wohrles' rights. In reaching its decision, the Board had emphasized the fact that the Wohrles had illegally built the decks. The court concluded that the Board had "acted well within its authority and discretion" in focusing on its concern "that granting variances for structures built in violation of exist- ing zoning ordinances was not in the public interest." Moreover, in any case, the court found that the Board's denial of the Wohrles' variance requests did not deprive them of any substantial rights since: (1) they "were not making lawful use of their properties when they built within the setback areas without first r~ceiving a variance or building permit;" and (2) even with the denial of the variances, they were still able to use their property (for a dock on the lake) as permitted under the laws and ordinances that were in effect when they purchased their propertic:s. See also: Lane Ranch Partnership v. City of Sun Valley, 144 Idaho 584, 166 P.3d 374 (2007). ( j "---./' See also: Sanders Orchardv. Gem County ex reZ. Ed.. of County Com'rs, 137 Idaho 695, 52 P.3d 840 (2002). j j 1 i,_ @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 3 55