Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 - Augnst 25, 2004 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />Variance - New roof is same height, but more imposing <br />Board grants variance so owner won't have to remove it <br />Cita.tion: Gua.nsco v. Jefferson Pansh Zoning Appeals Board, Courr of Appeal <br />ofLouisicma, 5th .Cir., iVa. 04-CA-148 (2004) <br /> <br />LOD1SL\J."fA (06/29/04) - Wood submined plans to the Jefferson Parish <br />Department of Inspection and Code Enforcement for a residence he planned to <br />build. <br />Toe plans called for a hip-type roof 45 feet in height. This plan was ap- <br />proved and building pennits were issued. <br />At some point during the construction, the roof was reframed with a difrer- <br />eDt sbape and pitch, though not with a dIfferent height tban previously ap- <br />proved. \Vhen neighboring property owners complained, "'load received a <br />variance for his new roof from the Jefferson Parish Zoning Appeals Board. <br />Tae neighbors sued, challenging the variance and arguing the new roof <br />was of a more imposing "mansard" style. The court ruled in the board's favor. <br />Toe neighbors appealed, claiming the board failed to show Wood would <br />suffer a demonstrable hardship if he were ordered to comply with the zoning <br />ordinance. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />Wood would suffer a demonstrable hardship if he was required to tear down <br />his roo f. <br />Tne board noted economic reasons alone did noc constitute a hardship. <br />However, Wood would have been required to rip off a roof, rent another prop- <br />erty, and live in anocher property with his family and small child who was still <br />of grammar school age while a new roof was designed and constructed. 'Ibis <br />was clearly a demonstrJ.ble hardship and not a mere inconvenience. <br />Importantly, \\lood did not intentionally seek to trick the parish Of his neigh- <br />bors. Tnere were various definitions of mansard roofs. In fact, the board's <br />expert was unsure whether "Vood's roof was a mansard or a hip roof. If the <br />roof was a hip roof. 00 variance was required at all. "'lood thought since his <br />roof was similar in design and of the same height, it continued Co comply with <br />the approved plans. <br />Consequently, the board was correct in finding 'vVood did not have co tear <br />down his roof. <br />see also: Pierce v. Parish of Jejfersol1. 668 So.2d 1153 (J996). <br /> <br />see also: Parish of'Jdferson v. DCIVis 716 So.2d .;.28 U9981. <br />. ~J - , <br /> <br />V~st~d Right - Developer cbims right in reliance on grading permit <br />Issuing agency jilils U) j()ilolV en vironmentallaws in granling it <br /> <br />Ci[{]Jicn: ~~11\-.:-Y[ jDdr-:rl.t::rs LLt: ~,'. (~oltn[') or jL'ZcrUlnenrr), Coui"r rJT' .J...p~oeCl! ()I' <br /> <br />C;<--IfiJ~~;rniu~ 3 .-\;),0, Dis:., .\I'U. (~O~-f.358 ::'Cf).+ <br /> <br />98 <br /> <br />-:g; 20CJ.. -:uml2.n :)'.;clisnmq 3rCliC. J.ny '2orC~.JUC~ICn SJrci11ol[eJ. :')r --nore :~forma[lCn ~ie3.S2 ~3i1 6 ~ -\ :J.2-<'JC4,g. <br />