Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/1997

Home

Z.B. January 1997. Page 3 Editor's note: For more background on this case, see Dodger's Bar & Grill Inc. v. Johnson County Board of County Commissioners, 32 F. 3d 1436 (1994); 889 E Supp. 1431 (1995); and 815 E Sulvp. 399 (1993). Lots Is lot bordered by grassy walkways 'corner lot'? Lauridsen v. City of Okoboji Board of Adjustment, 554 N. W. 2d 541 (Iowa) 1996 The Lauridsens owned a house on a lakefront'lot in the city of Okoboji, Iowa. When originally platted, streets forming the lot's northern and western boundaries met at the lot's northwest corner -- it was a corner lot. The city's zoning ordinance required bigger setbacks for corner lots. The ordinance defined a "corner lot," in part, as a lot at the intersection of two or more "streets." It defined a "street" as a "public thoroughfare which affords the principal means of access to the abutting property." In the 1930s, the city had vacated one of the streets where it fronted the Lauridsens' lot. The next year, the city vacated the other street, though the ordinance doing so stated the street would be maintained for pedestrians and transferred to the state. Since that time, both "streets" had reverted to grass in the vicinity of the Lauridsens' lot. When the Lauridsens' wanted to expand their house, the city told them the lot was subject to the side-yard setback requirements that applied to corner lots. The Lauridsens appealed to the board of adjustment. They also asked for a variance to allow the interior-lot setbacks to apply. The Lauridsens, noting the routes abutting their lot were merely pedestrian walkways, claimed the lot no longer abutted streets so it was not a corner lot. However, pedestrians still used them to walk to the lake. The board concluded the lot was a corner lot and denied the variance. The Lauridsens sued the board. Their neighbors -- whose view of the lake would be partially blocked if the Lauridsens' addition were built --joined the suit. The court affirmed the board's decision, and the Lauridsens appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court correctly ruled the Lauridsens' lot was a corner lot. Definitions in the ordinance and in dictionaries settled the dispute: The grassy pedestrian routes abutting the Lauridsens' lot were streets for purposes of the zoning ordinance. The routes fit the standard definitions of "thoroughfare": a "way or place through which there is passing"; "a way or passage through"; and "a street or highway affording an unobstructed exit at each end into another street or public passage." In addition, evidence showed the routes were the "principal means of access to the abutting property." see also: Ernst v. Johnson Count3; 522 N.W. 2d 599 (1994). see also: Helmke ~: Board of Adjttstment, 418 N. W. 2d 346 (1988). t-13