Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/1998

Home

Page 6 -- December 24, 1997 Z.B. public place, placing a dumpster and recycling bins on it, and surrounding it all with a fence, would impact the sightliness and historic integrity of the district. Moreover, the judge reasonably concluded Foster didn't show the denial of the permit would result in unreasonable economic hardship to the condominium. see also: Committee of 100 on the Federal City v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 571 A.2d 195 (1990). see also: Kalorama Heights Limited Partnership v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 655 A.2d 865 (1995). Zoning Change -- City amends definition of 'corner lot' so owner can build garage Shriver v. City of Okoboji, 567 N. W.2d 397 (Iowa) 1997 The Lauridsens bought a lakesh6re lot On West Okoboji Lake in Okoboji, Iowa', in the early 1980s. The Shrivers had owned an adjacent lot since 1947. The street abutting both lots was not open to vehicular traffic. In 1983, the Lauridsens applied to the city for a building permit to add an attached garage to their existing house. The city's Zoning administrator denied their request based on a city zoning ordinance that required a 25-foot setback for "corner lots." At the time, the ordinance defined a "corner lot" as a lot located at the intersection of two or more streets. The Lauridsens applied for a variance, which the city board of adjustments denied. In 1994, the Lauridsens became interested in selling their property. Seeking to enhance their property's value, they sought a determination from the zoning administrator that their lot was not a corner lot. The zoning administrator denied their request, finding their lot was a corner lot as defined by the'ordinance. The Lauridsens appealed to court. The court upheld the zoning administrator's finding, and the Lauridsens appealed again. While the Lauridsens' appeal was pending, their lawyer asked the city council to amend the definition of "corner lot" in the zoning ordinance. The council amended the ordinance to redefine a corner lot as a lot located at the intersection of two or more streets "designed to accommodate licensed motor vehicular traffic." Under the amended ordinance, the Lauridsens could build the proposed garage because their Property was not a corner lot subject to the setback requirement. The Shrivers sued the city, asking the court to declare that the amended ordinance was invalid. They claimed the city council acted illegally and arbitrarily. They also sought damages based on the decreased market value .of their property, arguing that a garage built on the Lauridsens' property would impair their view of the lake. The court dismissed the Shrivers' claims, and the Shrivers appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Shrivers failed to prove the zoning amendment was illegal or arbitrary, which they had to do to overcome the strong presumption in favor of its validity.