Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2005

Home

g.g. January 25,2005 M Page 5 Currently, the property was being used for the recycling of metal, plastic, and glass products for use by subsequent producers, with accessory Parking and loading. The city's department of licensing denied the permit, finding the sig'n's size and location violated citY ordinances. Ellsworth.and ClearChannel applied for a variance and the Zoning Board of Adjustment granted-it....-. : The Society Created :to Reduce Urban Blight (SCRUB) sued the board, and the court ruled in the bOard's favor. . ' SCRUB appealed, arguingneither EllSworth nor Clear channel demonstrated an unnecessary hardship, which Was required to obtain an ordinance. DECISION: Reversed, The board erred when it granted the variance. In considering a vmance request, the board was required to consider whether, because of the Particulav~physical surrounding, Shape, or topographi- cal conditions of the speCific structure or land involved, a literal enforcement of the zoning regulations would result in 'an unnecessary hardship. The board found thei property was currently being used for waste pap.er sorting and bailing and for the recycling of metal, glass, and plastic products. Thus, Ellsworth and CIear Channel did not demonstrate that the physical char- acteristics of the property were sUCh that the property could not be Used for a permitted purpose, or that the characteristics of the area were such that the property had no value with respect to apermitted use. The prope.rty's current use as a permitted recycling center clearly showed the property had value Without a variance. see also: Society created to 'RedUce Urban Blight v. Zoning Board_of Adjustment, 831 A. 2d 1255 (2003.). " see also: Society Created to' RedUce Urban Blight v. 'Zoning Board of Adjustment, 787 A.2d 1123 (2001).: Subdivision -- Developer claims land USe fits agricultural exemption Argues residences and guest ilodge have:sufficient agricultural purpose Citation: HD Dunn & Son LP v. Teton County, Supreme Court of Idaho, No. 28306, 2004 Opinion No. 121 .(2004) IDAHO (11/30/04) M COOk and S°rensen divided their 160-acre parcel of land into eight separate 20-acre parcels .by warranty deed to themselves. They be- lieved they did not need to comply with' the local subdivision ordinance be- cause there was an exemption for bona fide divisions.of agricultural land for agricultural purposes. Their land had been :used as a ranch, and they planned to ultimately build single-family residences and a guest lodge on the property. Such uses were allowed within the Agriculture, Large Increment zone in Which © 2005 Ouinlan Publishing Group. Any reprOdUction i.~ prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 95