Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. January10,1998. Page 5 <br /> <br />was impractical to build a deck on the sides of Huntoon's house because large <br />trees would have to be removed, the board properly considered competing <br />environmental concerns. <br /> Although the board may 'have mentioned factors personal to Huntoon, the <br />board's decision was otherwise reasonable. Despite isolated references to <br />improper factors, the board's logic was clear: the proposed deck wasn't barred <br />by the zoning ordinance, but it was barred by the setback requirement; this <br />prohibition was unnecessarily burdensome because.no other location was <br />feasible; the hardship was unique to Huntoon's property; and the partial location <br />of the deck within the setback area did not harm the public interest. <br /> see also: Snyder v. Waukesha County Zoning Board of Adjustment, 247 <br />N. W. 2d 98 (1976). <br /> see also: State v. Winnebago Cottnty, 540 N. W. 2d 6 (1995). <br /> <br /> Standing -- Resident of neighboring town appeals decision based on <br /> potential harm to well water <br /> Zelnick v. Troy City Council, 684 N.E. 2d 381 (Ohio) 1997 <br /> The Kensington Land Company asked the city of Troy, Ohio, to accept the' <br /> final plat of a subdivision it owned. <br /> Zelnick lived in the adjoining town on property located about 1,000 feet <br /> from the Kensington plat. Zelnick attended the public meeting at which the city <br /> council discussed accepting the plat. At the end of the meeting, Zelnick objected <br /> to the plat and commented on the potential harm it would cause to his land. The <br /> city adopted an ordinance accepting the plat. <br /> Zetnick appealed the council's decision to court. He claimed the subdivision <br /> would adversely impact his well water and would disrupt the area's drainage <br /> system. <br /> The council asked the court to dismiss Zelnick's appeal, arguing Zelnick <br />wasn't entitled to appeal its decisions.. <br /> Zelnick submitted evidence showing six wells in his area had dried up in <br />the last year. He also submitted the minutes of the council meeting at which the <br />city engineer testified the subdivision wouldn't affect the city's wells it would <br />affect only the wells in the surrounding area. <br /> The engineer denied he made the statement and testified the subdivision <br />probably wouldn't adversely affect any wells. In addition, other comments in <br />the council minutes indicated the ratio of dried-up wells in the area was consistent <br />with dried-up wells in the entire county. <br />DECISION: Case dismissed. <br /> Zelnick was not entitled to appeal the city council's decision. <br /> To appeal an administrative decision, a person had to show the decision <br />directly affected his or her property rights. The person also must have actively <br />participated in the administrative proceedings. Zelnick participated, but he <br />couldn't show the council's decision directly affected his land. <br /> Zelnick claimed the subdivision would adversely affect the well water and <br /> <br /> <br />