Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/11/2004

Home

/~ Z.B. january 25, 2004 -- Page 3 The ordinance stated newly constructed homes had to incorporate design features that allowed people in wheelchairs to more easily enter and use the homes. These features included wider doorways, lower electrical outlets, and reinforced bathroom walls that permitted the installation of gab bars. Washburn Company ][nc. applied for a permit to build a single-family home; but the proposed design failed to comply with the ordinance. Washburn sued, and the court ruled in favor of the county. Washburn appealed, arguing the county had n9 rational basis for enacting the ordinance requirements for single-family homes. Although Washburn con- ceded the county had a rational basis to adopt building, fire, and mechanical codes for protection of the general population, it claimed the county had no rational basis to impose costly design requirements on all new private homeowners that had value to. less than 1 percent of the population. DECISION: Affirmed. The county had a ration'a/basis for concluding private home designs should facilitate access to people confined to wheelchairs. It was true that only approximately 1 percent of the population is confined to wheelchairs, but a much larger percentage will suffer a disability at some point in their lives. " The county sho,,ved approximately 41 percent of people over 65 have some form of disability. Disability is a growing problem.both nationally and locally. The state's population of people over the age of 6.0 is expected to triple by 2025. Although many disabled people will not be confined to wheelchairs, the county concluded the number of people' cor22ned to wheelchairs is rising. For the a. bo..,~e reasons,..the county addressed a legitimate government inter- est when it adopted a building code designed to increase the number of homes accessible to those in wheelchairs. Citation: Washburn v. Pi.ma Count.., Co,irt of Appeats of Arizona, Div. 2, Dept: B, No. 2 CA-CV 2003-0107 (2003). see also: grate v. Watson, 6 P. 3d 752 (2000).. see also: Empress Adult Video and Bookstore v. City of Tucson,. 59 P. 3d 814 (2002). . Variance -- Owner of'property wants to subdivide parcel into smaller than approved lot Predecessors owned title ~nore than 100 years be~tbre current minimum lot area regulations CONNECTICUT (12/02/03) -- Dupont's lot was a single parcel in.a residen~ rial AA zone with an area of appro~rnately 30,000 square feet. Duponr applied for a variance to split the lot into two parcels. One of the proposed parco, is had [ess than the required amount of square feet: Before 1950, the I. ots ,,vould both have had su~!clent area, but the minimum requirement had ...lc yegrs. 109