Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/09/1995

Home

goB. October 15, 1995 -- Page 7 owner the eertificate of occupancy for each unit. After acquiring ownership, the bank co~ntinued to use the building for seven units. Later, the city Building Department ordered the bank to use the building for only two units. The batik applied to the city's Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, claiming cqmpliance with the order would cause it economic hardship. The board denield the variance, saying the property was not unique and the bank's economic h~ardship was self-imposed. The bank asked a court to review the board's decision, but the court dismissed the case. The bank appealed. While the appeal was pending, the bank applied for a new variance for five units. The bloard denied that application for the same reasons. The bank asked a court to review that decision. The court allowed the bank's challenge, holding that the board's finding of self-imposed hardship was arbitrary. The city appealed. The appeals court heard both appeals together. DECISIONi First decision affirmed; second decision reversed. The tria! court's dismissal of the first appeal was affirmed. Its decision of the second appeal was reversed in favor of the city. The bank was not entitled to a variance. The trial court properly dismissed the appeal of the board's first decision. The evidende supported, the conclusion that the bank's hardship was self-im- posed. The bank did not make the proper inquiries to determine whether the property's use as a seven-unit dwelling was legal. Therefore, the bank was responsible for its economic hardship and was not entitled to a variance. There were also nO unique circumstances. The bank did not give the board any evi- dence that the Quail Street property was unique compared to Other properties in the zoning district. The trial cOurt improperly granted the bank's second appeal. It had to fol- low. the firs[i decision that the bank's hardship was self-imp0sed because that issue was fully litigated then. Also, the bank again failed to prove any unique circumstances. Matter of Eung Lim-Kim v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of lrvington, 586 N.Y.S.2d 633. Variance --iWas Denial of Daiquiri Shop's Request Politically Motivated? Clark v. City of Shreveport, 655 So. 2d 617 (Louisiana) 1995 Clark wanted to operate a shop in the North Market Street area of the city of Shreveport, La. He wanted one side of the bUilding to be a lounge that served beer and daiquiris for on-site consumption; the other would be a take-out dai- quiri shop (Which was classified as a package liquor store). Under the city's - zoning ordinances, uses involving the sale of alcoholic beverages were special exceptions that needed to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Clark applied to the city for licenses and a zoning variance. After the Metro- politan Planaing Commission approved it, the application went to the board. The board daferred considering the application for a month. In the ma. antime, a land use report was submitted to the board. The report indicated that the proposal complied with the board's guidelines, except for