Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. <br /> <br />June 10, 2004 Page 7 <br /> <br />Variance -- Variance granted for unnecessary parking <br />Application submitted as way to get building perrnit <br />Citation: Mendlik v. Board of Adjustment for the City of West Point, Nebraska <br />Court of Appeals, No. A-02-793 (2004) <br /> <br />NEB RASKA (4/06/04) -- Yarger wanted to develop a portion of his property, <br />but failed to receive necessary building permits because it was covered by <br />several zoning ordinances. <br /> Yarger requested variances from the zoning ordinances for the sole reason <br />he believed he needed them for the necessary building permits. <br /> The Board of Adjustment for the City of West Point granted the requested <br />variances. One of these included a variance to allow a.portion'of the property <br />to be used for off-street parking. <br />Neighboring property owners sued, and the court ruled in the board's favor. <br />The neighboring property owners appealed, arguing the off-street parking <br />variance was illegal because it did not address any undue hardship. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> The off*street parking variance was awarded incorrectly. <br /> There was no evidence indicating strict application of the zoning require- <br />ments with regard to off-street parking would produce undue hardship to Yarger. <br />In fact, the evidence showed exactly the opposite. <br /> Yarger testified, and the board acknowledged, he did not need off-street <br />parking because the vehicles of his customers would be located inside the <br />building. Yarger stated he didn't need the parking, but thought it was essential <br />to making "everything legal." In fact, he offered to cover the contested area <br />with grass or concrete. <br /> Consequently, it was clear the board's decision was based on Yarger's be- <br />lief it was needed, not on whether he would suffer an undue hardship if the <br />variance was not granted. <br />see also: Eastroads v. Omaha Zoning Board of Appeat& 628 N. W. 2d 677 (2001). <br />see also: City of Battle Creek v. Madison City of Board of Adjustment, 609 <br />N.W. 2d 706 (2000). <br /> <br />Grandfathered Use -- Property used for short-term rentals prior to <br />code change <br />Owner had Jbllowed earlier regulations, 50 percent rule <br />Citation: Rollison v. City of Key West, Court of Appeal of Florida, 3rd Dist., <br />No. 3D02-2644 (2004) <br /> <br />FLORIDA (4/14/04) -- In 1996, Rollison bought a vacation home in Key <br />West. [n addition to vacations, Rollison also wanted to rent the property for <br />part o~' the year to offset the expense of owning it. <br /> <br />2004 Quinlan Publist~iag Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />101 <br /> <br /> <br />