Laserfiche WebLink
.- " Z.B. February 25, 1998 .. Page 5 <br /> <br />Lot Size m Owner seeks variance for lots that were nonconforming when <br />he bought them <br /> Spence v. Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Virginia Beach, <br /> Supreme Court of Virginia, Record No. 970351 (Virginia) 1998 <br /> Beagle, a real estate developer, bought two lots in the Chesapeake Beach area <br />of the city of Virginia Beach, Va. The lots, platted in 1928, were in a residential <br />zone requiring a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet for a lot to be buildable. <br /> The two lots combined were 4,011 square feet, and formed a triangular- <br />shaped coruer property subject to a 30-foot setback on two of its three sides. <br />Due to the size and shape of the property, Beagle couldn't build a re§idence on <br />the property without a variance. Beagle bought the lots knowing their previous <br />owner had been denied a variance to build a. single house on the lots. <br /> State law allowed a local zoning board to grant a variance if it found strict <br /> application of a zoning ordinance would result in an undue hardship <br /> "approaching confiscation, as distinguished from a special privilege," the <br /> hardship wasn't shared 'by other properties in the same zoning district, and the <br /> variance wouldn't adversely affect adjacent property or change the character <br /> of the zoning district. The board had to consider whether'the owner ~cquired <br /> the property in "good faith" and if strict application of the ordinance would <br /> effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict use of the property. <br /> Beagle applied to the city zoning board for a variance, submitting a site <br /> plan for a house that conformed to the applicable lot coverage restrictions. To <br /> build the house, he needed a front Yard setback variance of 17 feet, a side yard <br /> setback variance of' 17 feet, and a reduction of parking space size. The board <br /> granted Beagle a Variance. <br /> A neighbor appealed to court, arguing Beagle didn't proVe he bought the property <br /> in good faith because he bought the property at a Iow price knowing it couldn't be <br /> developed without a variance. He also claimed any hardship Beagle suffered was <br /> self-inflicted, because he knew the property was nonconformingwhen he bought it. <br /> The neighbor cited three cases in which the Supreme Court of Virginia had <br /> found the owner's hardship was self-created. One case dealt with a house <br /> inadvertently built in violation of setback requirements; one involved an owner <br /> that apparently used his residential lot as an auto sales lot (the lot was adjacent <br /> to the owner's auto business); and the third involved an owner that built an <br /> illegal apa..-tment over an existing garage.. <br /> The court upheld the board's decision, and the neighbor appeated to the <br /> Supreme Court of Virginia. <br /> DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> Beagle was entitled to the variance. <br /> Beagle's purchase of the property at a low price with the intention of seeking <br /> a variance didn't mean he bought the property in bad faith. The very purpose of <br /> the statutory variance requirements were to give property owners a chance to <br /> seek a variance when a zoning ordinance prohibited or unreasonably restricted <br /> the owner's use of the property. The purchase price of the property was irrelevant <br /> <br /> <br />