Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/02/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 15, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 12 the footings and piers of the garage, Reynolds was notified of the need for a building permit. Reynolds applied for and received a building permit on June 21, 2013. Four days later, Uriah Mach ("Mach"), a land -use planner for the County, infouined Reynolds via an email that Reynolds's garage was located too close to the road and would need a variance for the setback violations. Reynolds did not respond, and Mach then sent two related letters about Reynolds' violations and need to take action. Reynolds failed to respond to the County's notifications, and instead proceeded with the completion of construction of the garage. Sometime in 2015, Reynolds finally applied to the County Board of Adjustment (the "Board") for a variance for the setback violations. The Board declined Reynolds' request. Thereafter, Reynolds refused to bring his property into compliance with the right-of-way and zoning regulations, and the County then filed a petition for permanent injunction against him. The County sought a permanent injunction, "mandating that [Reynolds] comply with [the County] zoning regulations, and that he remove the accessory building [ie., garage], [a] fence, and [a] satellite dish from . . . the right of way area . . . the setback area . . . [and] the area in front of the main building." The trial court found that Reynolds had "unlawfully constructed and maintains on his property an unlawful accessory building abutting [the road], together with a fence and a satellite television receiver dish be- tween that building and [the road], all in violation of [County] Ordi- nances and which all unlawfully encroach on the 25-foot setback area established by the [County] Zoning Regulations and upon the [Coun- ty's] right of way abutting [the road] in front of that property." The court entered a permanent injunction, requiring Reynolds to "remove in its entirety that building, that fence, and that satellite receiver dish from the [County] setback area and [County road] Right of Way within 60 days of the date of th[e] Judgment and . . . permanently restrained and enjoined [Reynolds] from building or maintaining any structures in that setback area or in that right of way in the future." Reynolds appealed. Reynolds argued that the County was not entitled to a permanent injunction against him because the County failed to prove the two elements needed for a permanent injunction: (1) irrepa- rable harm; and (2) lack of adequate remedy at law. Reynolds contended that there was no finding of harm to either the public safety or health. He also maintained that the existence of potential criminal penalties (i.e., the imposition of a fine for zoning violations) constituted an ade- quate remedy at law for the County. Reynolds further argued that the balancing of equities should have resulted in a ruling in his favor. Es- sentially, he argued that because the County was not using the right -of- © 2018 Thomson Reuters 9