Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2004

Home

Page 6--June 25, 2004 Z.B. on which it sought to build two billboards. A2'ter receiving the necessary perm/ts, Outdoor-cleared and excavated th~ land, set in power poles, and ordered two structures to be delivered to the site. After one sign was completed, a county code officer called Outdoor and told it the permits had been issued in error. After calling the law department and discovering the officer had been instructed not to issue a stop work order "at this rime," Outdoor completed the second sign. Some time later, Outdoor was ordered to remove the signs. Outdoor then applied for variances, which were granted because the board felt Outdoor had attempted to follow the law and had been misled. Neighboring property owners sued, and the court ruled, in.their favor. Outdoor appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The variances were incorrectly granted for financial concerns, whether the government was at fault or not. Outdoor dearly stated "we don't know how we will survive financially, if a ,~ariance is not granted and the signs are removed." This was clear proof the variances were granted because of financial concerns superimposed on the issuance of the unlawt\d permits. Variances could only be granted because of the pecuhar circumstances of' the land. The board was not author/zed to grant a variance when the only hard- ship to the owner in complying with the zoning regulations was the result of a condition e,'dsting not in the land itself but in a structure that w. as created or altered by the property owner in violation of the zoning ordinance. see also: Citizensj'br Cotlierville v. Town of Cotlierville, 977 S. W. 2d 32t (1998). see also: McCallet~ v. City of Memphis, 786 S. W. 2d 633 (1990). Conditional Use -- Board requires buffer buildings for project No other development pi~oject required to have similar buffers Citation: MEE Bellevue LLC v. Winnebago Cotmry, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin., Dist. 2, No. 03-2158 (2004) WISCONSIN (05/12/04) -- MEE Bellevue LLC applied for a conditional use permit to construct a multi family apartment complex of over 100 units on its property. The board of adjustment ultimately denied the application, finding the con- ditional use could only be approved if certain buffers were added to the overall project. MEE sued, and the court ruled in the board's favor. MEE appealed, arguing no other development was required to.have a simi- h.tr buffer zone. DECISION: AffSrmed. 132 · © 2004 ~3uinian Puoiismng Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information i)lease call (617) 542-0048.