Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2014

Home

July 10, 2014 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 13 Zoning Bulletin During hearings on their variance request, the Cronleys testified about their need for the RV, and several of the Cronleys' neighbors expressed op- position to the RV. The Cronleys had purchased the RV to assist with the care of their son, Joey, who had muscular dystrophy and osteoporosis. The RV featured a hoist and track system for moving Joey, which was necessary to avoid breaking Joey's fragile bones. The bathroom in the RV was also easier to get Joey into. The Cronleys claimed that the RV was the only means of transportation for Joey and that it was equipped with generators, which were needed to power Joey's breathing machine during power outages. Mr. Cronley testified that he used the RV to travel for work, and so it was gone from the property "close to 20 days" in a month. The neighbors who opposed the Cronleys' variance request argued that the RV was an "eyesore" and that it would decrease property values. They also argued that allowing the variance would create a precedent and result in the neighborhood being turned into a "trailer park." There was testimony that other residents who owned RVs stored them off -site. Jefferson's Zoning Board of Adjustment (the "ZBA") unanimously declined the Cronleys' request for a variance. The ZBA found that the requirements to issue a variance had not been met. More specifically, the ZBA found that: expense was not a "hardship" warranting a variance; there was strong opposition from the neighbors; a variance would not increase property values or adjoining property values would be depreciated; and the variance would not tend to preserve and advance the prosperity and general welfare of the neighborhood. The Cronleys appealed to court. The District Court reversed the ZBA's decision and granted a variance of 2.05 feet to the Cronleys. The ZBA appealed. On appeal, the ZBA asserted that "a hardship based on the medical condition of an occupant is not an `undue hardship' under Louisiana law and the [Code], but rather special conditions or circumstances peculiar to the land, structure, or building [which were not present here] must be involved." DECISION: Judgment of district court reversed. The Court of Appeal of -Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, agreed with the ZBA. It held that the Cronleys had failed to meet the elements necessary for a variance. In so holding, the court explained that, pursuant to Jefferson's Code, the purpose of a variance was to: "permit an applicant to apply for relief from the requirements of the letter of the ordinance when unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty exists, or when there is an exceptional or unusual physical condition of a lot, which condition is not generally prevalent in the neighborhood and which condition would prevent a reasonable or sensible arrangement of building on the lot." The Code 'also detailed the circumstances which had to exist before the ZBA could grant a variance: "1. Surrounding property values will not be negatively affected; and 6 © 2014 Thomson Reuters