Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/1998

Home

Z.B. August 25, 1998 .Page 5 zoning forms, but the extent to which she helped Roberts was disputed. On the plan, Roberts filled in dimensions to represent the distances from the improvements to the lot lines. She indicated the garage would be 20-by~20 feet. Without speaking to Roberts or inspecting the property, the zoning inspector issued a zoning permit. He and the clerk believed a figure "20" on the plan indicated the garage would be 20 feet from the east side line. A builder went to Roberts' property and asked where she wanted the garage. Roberts pointed to the general area. The builder found an old aban- doned driveway in the general vicinity and built the garage in line with that. The garage was five feet from the neighbors' fence. The zoning inspector told Roberts the garage violated the village's 10-foot sideyard setback. Roberts asked for a variance. At a hearing, the neighbors objected to the variance, and the fire chief said the proximity of the garage to the neighbors' fence would increase the fire hazard. Roberts said. it would cost her $7,000 to move the garage. The zoning appeals board denied Roberts a variance and ordered her to move the garage. Roberts appealed. Expert testimony suggested moving the garage another five feet would decrease the fire hazard only a negligible amount. The state's highest court had earlier set the standard for granting a variance. It said courts should consider whether the property would have any beneficial use without a variance, the variance was substantial, the character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, the variance would adversely affect government services, the property owner's situation could be fixed through some method other than a variance, and whether granting the variance would observe the spirit and the intent of the zoning requirement. The court granted the village judgment without a trial. It said Roberts' hardship was self-created because she failed to ensure the builders built the garage in compliance with the law. Roberts appealed. She argued the court didn't consider all the factors laid out by the state's highest court. DECISION: Judgment affirmed. Roberts wasn't entitled to a variance. Although the court didn't list each factor to consider when granting or denying a variance, it clearly had these factors in mind when making its decision. Roberts could use her property with or without a garage in its current or in a different location. The variance she requested was substantial -- it reduced the sideyard setback by half. Although moving the garage would be expensive, Roberts could have avoided the added cost by building thegarage in the right place to begin with. Her ignorance of applicable zoning laws didn't excuse her violation. Because the plot plan showed the garage 20 feet away from the side-lot line . and in compliance with the law -- the zoning clerk and inspector didn't have to explain the side setback requirements to Roberts.