Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2003

Home

Z.B. August 25, 2003 -- Page decisioris. They argued the balancing test, required by a state law, should have been conducted; Since that law pre-empted standards noted in local zoning codes. ~The state statute dealing with area variances and the balancing test pro- vided, "A local zoning board of appeals shall have the power, upon an appeal from a decision or determination of the administrative official charged With the enforcement of such law, to gant area variances as defined herein... In making its determ/nation, the zoning board of appeals shall take into. consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is ganted, as weighed against the detri- ment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such gant." The lower courts ag-reed with the owners and annulled the boards" deci- sions, and also the courts invalidated the applicable zoning codes. The boards appealed, but Ihe lower decisions were afl'n-med. They appealed again. DECISION: Affirmed. The boards' decisions were annulled. Local authority to contravene laws of general application had to yield to the superior interest of the state legislature when that interest had been demon- strated either by an express statutory prohibition or by a finding of preemption. Local boards still had authority within the community limits; however, the' issue of area variance review was intended to be unified by the state law re- quir/ng the use of the balancing test. In this case, there was an overlap between state and local authority, and the - traditional respect for .the primacy of the state interest required the will of the legislature to prevail over the desires of the individual localities. Citation: Cohen v. Board of Appeals of the Pillage of Saddle Rock, Court of Appeals of New York, Nos. 81 & 82 (2003). Signs -- Motel granted height variance for road sign Raised sign justified by line-of-sight probleras OHIO (6/24/03) -- Cross Country Inns Inc. owned a motel along an interstate highway that was situated in a planned industrial district (PD). In 1984, the motel was g-ranted a vahance by the planning commission to erect a sign that measured 35 feet in height. At the time, the code al/owed a maximum height of 15 feet. Since then, the code was amended to allow signs of 8 feet in height or less. The motel was apparently about 50 to 60 feet lower than the interstate, creating fine-of-sight problems for the sign. The problem was worsened by the fact that the motel was only three stories high and difficult to see from the road. In 1999, the motel filed for another variance with the board of zoning ap- peals, asking for permission to raise the sign to 50 feet. The motel claimed the trees planted by the city were obscur/ng the current sign and the lack of sign visibility was causing financial harm. since most of .the guests coming to the motel were from outside the city limits. 103