Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2005

Home

January 10, 2005 -- Page 3 NORTH CAROLINA (11/10104) ' Hyatt's !akefront property suffered severe erosion at the shoreline, loSingmore than 15 feet of its soil in less than a decade. To stop the erosion, Hyatt was granted an application to build a seawall and a boathouse. However, once the seawall and boathouse were bUilt, a neighbor 'mr. ormed the town that the seawall encrgached on his property. Upon inspection, the town disco'~ered Hyatt's Seawall encroached on the neighbor's property and violated four lake-structure reguiations,,inc}uding f'dl and size restrictions. Hyatt. applied for variances, which the~t0wn denied. Hyatt sued, and the court ruled in favor of the town. Hyatt appealed, arguing her equal protection rights were violated by the lake-structure regulations. DECISION: Affirmed, Hyatt's equal protection rights were not violated. The town had both the right and the duty to protect the environment and to prevent overuse of the lake. Regulations determining a property owner's right to erect lakeside structures promoted the value of predictability in development for both residents and 'the town. The court reasoned that the town's actions in applying the ordinance to Hyatt were rationally related to the above purposes. Using a permit to limit the amount of land fills and development served to decrease, erosion and lake shrinkage. Furthermore, the court determined that Hyatt was treated no differently than similarly situated individuals, Merely proving that a benefit Was denied to one person while conferred upon another was inSufficient to show that a stat- ute Was administered or enforced in a discriminatory manner.. Here, the town was able to show that others were penalized for violating the lake-structure regulatiOns. In fadt, i~the board concluded that if it granted the requested variances to HYatt, it WOuld confer on Hyatt special privileges that were denied' to other owners in the same district. The court concluded that aot every property could hage the precise sea- wall or boathouse its owner desired. The environmentally sound and aestheti- cally pleasing preservation of the lake justified neutral .regUlations prescribing who could build and what could be built. see alxo: Tri-Coun~ Paving Inc. v. Ashe County, 281 E3d 430 (2002). see also: Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure, 314 F. Supp. 2d 562 (2003). Ordinance- Developer argues 'houses' refers to 'lots' Zoning amendment attempts to address geologic instability Citation: Quaker Court LLC v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson, Court of Appeals of Colorado, Division A, No. 03CAJ867 (2004) :,_,~.~,..': .:: .~-: '._..~',,", , ~: '~,,..'.'~ ~ "', '...4; . '.<'uaKcr L. oar[ LLL wan[cd ~c, d~velop propcrVy i~ 2005 Oumlan Publish~[~g Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 97