Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2003

Home

Page 8 -- August 25, 2003 106 in the intended structures would not be temporary. Citation: Jordan v. City, of Ellsworrh, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, Nan~ 02 -496 (2 003). Frontage -- Insufficient road frontage requires variance Was there sufficient j~roof of hardship ? OHIO (6/16/03) -- Sanicky applied to construct a single-fami/y dwelling on a Iarge lot located in a rural area. The lot had 130 feet of frontage in an area where the statute required 350 feet of road frontage for construction of s/ngte- family dwellings. The lot was located in a general farm district wherein the permitted uses were agr/culture and single-family homes. The stated purpose of a general farm district was to protect and maintain the openness and rural character of the countryside, although providing areas for rural development of various kinds was appropriate. The application was denied because of insufficient frontage. Sanick-y ap- pealed to the Ruggles township board of zoning appeals seetdng a variance. The board denied the application. Samcky appealed, and the lower court affLrrned the board's decision. Samcky appealed again, contending the zoning ordinance was unconstitu- tional as applied to him and the lower court erred in deciding chat the board's decision was based on reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. DECISION: Reversed. The board's decision was vacated. To issue a variance, 1) the variance could not be contrary to public interest, 2) Literal enforcement of the resolution would result in unnecessary hardship, 3) the spLr/t of the zoning resolution had to be observed, 'and 4) substantial .justice had Io be done. The property value for a residence was estimated at $135,000, whereas the agr/cultural value was actually a negative value. The board admitted residences on very large lots 1/kc the one owned by Sanicky would not deviate from the . rural nature of the area and would not create any burdens on the government entity. The public interest would not be thwarted by allowing a single-fami/y dwelling to be constructed on a lot with only 130 feet of frontage. Further, Sanicky would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance were denied be- cause of the dramatic drop in property value. Finally, the request to construct a single-family dwelling on this lot was within the sp/r/t of zoning regulations. The court also decided the lower court erred in not conducting a completely new, or de novo, review. There was no transcript available to the court from the board's hearing, and Sanicky was entitled to a de ~ovo review because the issue of constitutionality was raised at the lower court. Citation: Sanic,(? vs. Ruggles Township Board of Zoning Appeal,, Court of Appealx of Ohio, 3th App. Dist., A~'hland Co., iVo. 02COA03_~