Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/1998

Home

z,g. July 25, 1998 -- Page 7 I I I I :1 I I I I I I I I I I I I building unless those parts were designed for the use before the ordinance was enacted. After public hearings, the town zoning board denied the Lobster Shack's request. Although the proposed foundation wouldn't be a prohibited expansion of the use, the board reasoned, expanding the business into the basement would. The board also concluded the land could yield a reasonable return without a variance. The Lobster Shack appealed to court. It apparently argued the town should have issued a variance because the zoning ordinance's shoreland provisions, which would allow the basement, conflicted with its nonconforming use pro- visions. The court affirmed the board's decision, and the Lobster Shack appealed again. DECISION: Affirmed. The town properly denied the Lobster Shack a variance. Ordinarily, when two zoning ordinances conflicted, they had to be construed in the manner most favorable to property owners. In this case, how- ever, the town's zoning ordinance contemplated potential conflicts and clearly stated that whenever a provision of the ordinance conflicted with another provision, the more restrictive and specific provision controlled. Because the nonconforming use provisions would prohibit the Lobster Shack's proposed construction, it controlled. see also: Nyczepir v. Town of Naples, 586 A.2d 1254 (1991). Variance -- Owner seeks to split lot partially separated by another parcel Citation: Rydbom v. Palmyra Townsht~ Board of Zoning Appeals, Court of Appeals of Ohio, H th Appellate Dist., Portage County, No. 97-P-0086 (1998) Rydbom bought a 10-acre parcel in Palmyra Township, Ohio. The lot had frontage of 378 feet, but another parcel -- owned by someone else -- split the frontage. The dividing parcel was 150 feet wide, giving Rydbom two separate stretches of frontage of 123 feet and 105 feet, respectively. Rydbom wanted to split the property into two lots of about 5 acres each, apparently because someone offered to buy the property for $60,000 if it were split. Rydbom applied to the township zoning board for a variance. A neighbor opposed the variance, arguing it would allow a house to be built too close to his property line. Rydbom needed a variance to split the property because the minimum front- age requirement was 150 feet. To deserve a variance, Rydbom had to show "practical difficulties" would arise if the variance weren't granted. The relewmt factors to consider included whether the property would yield a reasonable return without the variance, whether the variance would change the neighborhood's character or would adversely affect the delivery of govern- mental services, and whether granting the variance would observe the spirit