Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 18 <br />through a CPU. The City had denied the CPU "simply because the <br />home was not in compliance with the spacing rule." Since that was the <br />sole reason for denial, the court concluded "the City could not have <br />complied with the FHA's reasonable accommodation provision, which <br />requires it to make changes in order to provide a disabled individual <br />housing equal to those who are not disabled." <br />See also: Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, <br />465 E3d 737, 749-50, 18 A.D. Gas. (BNA) 918 (7th Cir 2006). <br />See also: U.S. v. City of Chicago Heights, 161 E Supp. 2d 819 (N.D. <br />Ill. 2001). <br />Variance —Applicant argues special <br />circumstance of property warrants <br />area variance to operate pawn shop <br />Competing pawn shop owner argues any special <br />circumstances were created by applicant <br />selecting the particular property for such a use <br />Citation: Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 2017 WL 3428093 (Ariz. <br />2017) <br />ARIZONA (08/10/17)—This case addressed the issue of the stan- <br />dards a municipal zoning board applies in considering an application <br />for a zoning variance. More specifically, it addressed the issue of <br />whether a variance applicant's selection of property, with the knowl- <br />edge that an area variance is required for an intended use allowed on <br />similarly zoned properties, itself constitutes a self-imposed special <br />circumstance precluding an area variance. <br />The Background/Facts: In January 2010, William Jachimek, doing <br />business as Central Pawn, ("Jachimek") leased property (the "Prop- <br />erty") in a "Commercial C-3 District —General Commercial" in the <br />City of Phoenix (the "City"). Jachimek entered the lease with the inten- <br />tion of operating a pawn shop at the Property. A pawn shop was a <br />permitted use in the C-3 zoning district so long as the building housing <br />the pawn shop was located at least 500 feet from a residential district <br />and a use permit was obtained from the zoning administrator. Jachimek <br />applied for a use permit for his pawn business. Because the Property <br />was within 500 feet of a residential district, he also applied for a vari- <br />ance from the 500-foot residential setback requirement. <br />An area variance, such as that sought by Jachimek, relieves the duty <br />to comply with a zoning ordinance's technical requirements, such as <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />