Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/1999

Home

Page 6 -- December 10, 1998 Z.B. ance, Wronowski's land would have'no feasible use. Neighbors appealed. They argued the board focused on the burden to Wronowski rather than looking at the purpose of the ordinance and determin- ing whether an unnecessary hardship would exist. The board affirmed, and the neighbors appealed to court. ..- DECISION: Reversed. The evidence did not support the board's decision to grant Wronowski a variance. Wronowski did not show the land would have no feasible use absent the variance. Wronowski failed to present evidence that no' 6ther home design could incorporate the setback requirement. Unless he showed such evidence, it was possible he could still enjoy a. reasonable use'of the property without a vari- ance.' The board failed to properly addre§s this issue. seb also: State v. Kenosha County Board of Adjustment, 577N. W.2d 8]3 (1998). see also: Arndorfer v. Sauk County Board of Adjustment, 469 N. W.2d 831 (1991). Environmental Issues -- Neighbor says replacing house would destroy his panoramic view " Citation: Segal v. Folkers, Court of Ap_peals of Ohio, lst Appellate Dist., Hamilton County, Nos. C-970986 & C-970993 (1998) Folkers owned a house in Cincinnati's Mt. Adams suburb. He applied for a permit to raze his house and to build a new, larger house. Mt. Adams was a hillside community in an "environmental quality" dis- trict. Homes on the hillside had desirable city and river views and were subject to special building guidelines designed to protect and enhance the urban envi- ronment and its distinctive environmental characteristics. Folkers' next-door neighbor opposed the permit, claiming the proposed · house would ruin his panoramic view. He apparently relied on a particular environmental guideline that stated "[b]uildings should be planned to respect the views from other buildings and from public viewing places within the dis- trict.'' A City hearing examiner determined Folkers' request complied with the city's zoning regulations and the environmental guidelines. The examiner dis- missed the issue of the destruction of the neighbor's panoramic view, stating Folkers could have proposed an even taller building. The neighbor appealed to the zoning board, which upheld the examiner's decision. The neighbor appealed to court. He claimed the examiner failed to con- sider the impact Folkers' proposal would have on views within the district, as required by the guidelines. The court reversed the board's decision, finding there was no evidence the examiner considered the guideline requiring consideration of a proposed building's impact on views. The court said the examiner failed to mention the