Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

May 25, 2004 -- Page 7 Eastbrook improperly filed site plans for Springboro pursuant to its busi- ness regulations, it should have filed its site plans pursuant to Springboro's planned unit development zoning regulations. Consequently, it did not vest its rights, in the prior Springboro zoning. Clearcreek Township zoning did not apply to the property, thus Eastbro0k could not vest its fights according to Clearcreek's zoning either. see also: Welco industries [nc. v. Applied Companies, 617 N.E. 2d 1129 (1993). see also: Grafion v. Ohio Edison Co., 671 N.E. 2d 241 (1996). Variance -- City plans townhouses on nonconforming property Neighbor claims property configuration self-created Citation: Ferris v. City of Austin, Court of Appeals of Texas, 3rd. Dist., Austin, No. 03-03-00263-CV (2004) TEXAS (03/25/04) -- The city of Austin wanted to construct between 10 and 20 townhouses on land targeted for urban renewal. The property was zoned For both commercial and residential uses and bordered two city streets. Because of the strange configuration of the property, the city requested variances from its zoning regulations from the board of adjustment. The board granted the requested variances, finding the lots' nonconform- ing configuration created a hardship. Consequently, the city went ahead with its planned development. Ferris, a neighboring property owner who wanted to see the lots developed commercially, sued. The court ruled in favor of the city. Ferris appealed, arguing any hardship was self-imposed because the city was attempting 'to overburden the property with more townhouses than it could support. DECISION: Affirmed. The city's hardship was not self-imposed. The board 'had the authority to ~ant a variance from the zoning restric- tions when it could conclude a literal enforcement would result in an unneces- sary and unique hardship. Where lots were configured in such a way as to make them incompatible with zoning laws through no fault of the owner, and the strict application of those zoning laws would deny the owner reasonable use of the property, the board should grant a variance to relieve that burden. There ,,vas no evidence the city was the original developer of the property or that it was responsible for subdividing the lots into their present noncon- forming shapes. In the absence ,of evidence the substandard lot configuration ,;vas the prod- uct ~>f ,:ieiibcrate conduct of ~he city. the ch~'s hardship was not self-imposed. ~,;~ 200~L .2L,nian )ubiisning G,oup. Any ,'eprociuction :s 9ronibked. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 93