Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1999

Home

Page 8 --January 25, 1999 Z.B. said any practical difficulties the developer encountered were its own fault because it started construction without a zoning permit. The trial court again affirmed the board's deciSion, 'hiid the board appealed again. ..: ..-:... DECISION: Affirmed. The developer wasn't entitled to the setback variance. If the zoning ordinance created a mandatory 80-foot setback, the appeals court wouldn't have returned the matter to the board after the first appeal be- cause the warehouse already had a 90-foot setback. The ordinance set a mini- mum 80-foot setback that the board could increase at its discretion. The board didn't ignore the relevant factors for determining whether a vari- ance was appropriate; the evidence showed the developer wasn't entitled to a variance. Although the developer might lose a lot of money without a vari- ance, it caused its own losses by choosing to build without a permit. The developer could use its property; it simply had to remove a small per- centage of the warehouse. Moreover, the developer's requested variance was substantial because other buildings on the road were set back 150 feet and the warehouse would hide other businesses from the road. The only real difficulty the developer would encounter was moving its building's foundation 60 feet, which was its own fault. see also: Duncan v. Village of Middlefield, 491 N.E.2d 692 (1986). see also: Kisil v. Sandusky, 465 N.E. 2d 848 (1984). see also: PB Oil Company v. Dayton Board of Zoning Appeals, 672 N.E. 2d 256 (1996). Zoning Biweekly Bulletin To order Zoning Biweekly Bulletin, call (800) 229-2084, or complete and return this form to Quinlan Publishing Group, 23 Dryeock Ave., Boston, MA 02210-2387, or fax (800) 539-8839. $99 (plus $5.81 s&h) -- 1 year (24 issues) CI New subscription CI Payment enclosed Cl Renewal subscription CI Bill me Name Organization Address City State Phone Fax Email Zip