Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2014

Home

December 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 24 Zoning Law Bulletin property. The court said this would result in landowners in Ohio holding title to vacant land at their own peril subject to governmental regulations that can change overnight —thus eliminating the constitutional protections that people must be af- forded with respect to their own private property. Moreover, the court also noted the facts that the Boice Family had paid a buildable -lot tax rate on the lot for 32 years, and similar lots in the same neighborhood enjoyed the grandfathering-in treatment. Second, the court noted there was only a de minimis difference between the Boice Family's lot size of 33,000 square feet and the 35,000 square feet minimum build- able lot size in the zoning regulations.. The court found that given the relatively small difference, it was patently unreasonable not to find that the Boice Family's right in the lot's status as buildable was vested. Third, the court noted the disparate treatment to the Boice Family by the Village in that all other property owners who applied after the 1978 change in the ordinance to build on lots less than 35,000 square feet were granted permission to build. In addition to holding that the Boice Family had a vested right in the lot's status as buildable that continued beyond the 1978 zoning amendment, the court also held that the Boice Family's variance request should have been granted. The court noted that the standard for an area variance is a showing of practical difficulties. The court found that the Boice Family demonstrated that they had encountered practical difficulties; they met all six factors considered in determining whether a property owner has encountered practical difficulties in the use of the property without a variance: (1) the value of their property would be reduced since the pool of buyers would likely be reduced to adjoin- ing property owners; (2) the variance would not be substantial in that the lot was 94% of the required buildable lot footage; (3) the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, as numerous homes in the neighborhood were built on lots smaller than 35,000 square feet; (4) the granting of the variance would have no effect on the delivery of governmental services such as water, sewer, or garbage; (5) it was undisputed that the Boice Family purchased the lot before the enactment of the size restriction of 35,000 square feet and that at the time of purchase, the lot was a buildable lot; (6) the Boice Family's predicament could not be obviated through any means other than a variance; and (7). it was possible that the spirit and intent of the zoning requirement would be observed by granting the variance. See also: Duncan v. Village of Middlefield, 23 Ohio St. 3d 83, 491 N.E.2d 692 (1986). 4 © 2013 Thomson Reuters