Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/1998

Home

Page 6 m October 25, 1998 z.go The zoning board of adjustment held a hearing and granted the deli a spe- cial exception. It found there was more than enough parking in the area to support the deli's expansion even without the additional spaces the ordinance required. Neighbors appealed to court, and the court affirmed the board's decision. The neighbors appealed again, claiming the board abused its discretion by grant- ing the deli's request because the deli didn't prove it needed the special excep- tion due to some unique characteristic of its property... The deli argued the board's decision was appropriate because the neigh- bors didn't present any evidence at the hearing to show the special exception would harm the community. The deli also argued that by looking at where and how the property was situated, the board complied with the requirement that it base its decision on the property's unique characteristics. DECISION: Reversed, in the neighbors' favor. The board abused its discretion by granting the deli a special exception...~ To be entitled to the special exception the deli had to show it couldn't oth- erwise develop the property because of some unique characteristic. There was no evidence the board considered the property's geographical condition, size, or shape. Instead of focusing on the property's unique characteristics, as the ordinance required, the board like the deli looked to the availability of adequate public parking in the area. In trying to prove there was enough parking for the expansion, the deli lost sight of the real issue: whether the land was of such a unique nature to warrant a special exception from the parking requirements. Contrary to the deli's argument, the neighbors didn't have to prove the special exception would harm the public health or safety. Only if the deli first proved it was entitled to the special exception would the neighbors have to show that modifying the parking requirements would be harmful. The deli failed to prove it was entitled to the exception, so the neighbors didn't have to show anything. see also: Allegheny West Civic Council Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 689 A.2d 225 (1997).. see also: Bray v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 410 A.2d 909 (1980). Variance--Board says owners should move driveway or pool to build addition Citation: Cervenka v. Sawyer County, Court of Apt~eals of Wisconsin, Dist. 3, No. 98-0623 (1998) The Cervenkas owned a house on an 8-acre parcel in Sawyer County, Wis. They wanted to add a bedroom to their house, but they needed a setback vari- ance. The house already violated a 75-foot shoreline setback. The Cervenkas applied to the county board of adjustment for a variance. The board denied their request, finding they could use their parcel and A-frame house feasibly without further breaching the setback law. According to the board, the Cervenkas could relocate their driveway, swim-