Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/1995

Home

}cio Page 4 -- November 15, 1995 z.g. DECISION: Case returned to the lower court. The case was sent back for the lower court to declare that the school board had to give the commission its plans for the softball facilities, but did not have to follow the commission's recommendations. Because the two statutes conflicted, the court had to make a decision that gave them both meaning. It also had to interpret in the state's favor any stat- ute that appeared to infringe on its sovereignty. Both statutes required the school board to give the planning commission any proposals. However, one statute Specifically said boards -- as agents of the state -- did not need the commission's approval. Any compliance with the commission's recommen- dations was voluntary. Variance -- Parents Want to Expand House to Accommodate Disabled Daughter Davenport v. City of Grosse .Pointe Farms Board of Zoning Appeals, 534 N. W.2d 143 (Michigan) 1995 Davenport owned a two-story house in the city of Grosse Pointe Farms, Mich. The house was built in 186i, but all the surrounding neighborhood homes were built after World War II. Davenport's house was a nonconform- ing structure because it violated the city's 25-foot front setback requirement. Davenport wanted to expand the rear of his house upward and outward to accommodate the needs of his daughter, who had cerebral palsy. The house would increase from 1,300 to 2,850 square feet. Because the house was a nonconforming st.nicture, he had t° get a variance for the expansion. How- ever, Davenport's plans did not call for any further deviation from setback requirements, nor dld the plans violate any other zoning requirements. The board held a public hearing on Davenport's request. To address neigh- bors' complaints, the board suggested Davenport revise the plans. Davenport i'evised the plans 'to lower the roof and reduce the addition's total area. The board held another public hearing, at which Davenport pre- sented a letter from a real estate broker stating the expansion could have only a positive..e.ffect on property values. Another letter from the president of the city's historical society endorsed the renovations, and 10 neighbors wrote letters to support the expansion. However, other .neighbors opposed the plans and spoke out at the hearing. The board denied the variance. Davenport appealed to court; but then withdrew the appeal several months later to try to settle with the board. Davenport submitted revised plans in which the garage was moved to accommodate one of his neighbors. However, other neighbors said the revision Was even more offensive to them. The board again denied the variance. It found that although Davenport showed a hard- ship, the variance would interfere with neighbors' rights. The board said a smaller addition could have alleviated Davenport's hardship. Davenport reinstated his appeal. The court reversed the board's decision and granted the variance. It said the board failed to base its decision on how Davenport's property and home compared to others in the area regarding lot I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I