Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. : ~ : i February 25, 2005 ~ Page 5 <br /> <br /> Harris sued, and th~ c°Urt~ru[ed i~! f-aver of the board. <br /> ~, ~ :~. ~ ~. ii~ . . . ~ .~ <br /> Harris appealed, ~guing th~b0ar~l[s demals were v~olaUons of his equal <br />protection rights becat~e he: Wa{'tr_~at~ differently from other landowners. <br /> <br /> Hams' equal prote~oi~ ffg, h~s ~ef~not Violated. <br /> Harris claimed tha~qlUrin~th4 relev~nt mght-month period, 61 perrmts were <br />granted for eonstmcti&i that ~ ~e0~Y completed,. 18 permits for construc- <br />tion that had al.ready b~un, and ~4~er~ts for reconstruction of buildings that <br />did not corn°fy with t~ cityi&¢j:~Io~ever' Hams failed to show that he was <br />treated differently becaflse h¢i!r, ov~de~no breakdown of the types of pernuts <br />that were ~anted. } : ~: ii:..: ; [ <br /> Of the 239 total v!riancem~u~sts,~only eight involved garages. Of those <br />eight, the board appr°~d :~'0u(~d_~itiO~allY, during Hams' hearing, the board <br />distinguished two of ~oS~ ariJPi~al~ ~ecaUse those cases, involved internal <br />lots, while Harris' lot Whs ext~rnh[~d, ~xposed to the public on the street side. <br /> The board stated it8 de¢~0_O ~ I~fised on safety concerns mvolv~ng the <br /> street lal~uttafio Hams property and the 61ockage <br />amount of traffic once' " ' ~' ~' ,~ ' ' <br />cause4by the garage~Xs: '~ :" ~: TM ' <br /> Such,' !he~boj~rd s decision was rationally related to <br />the public interest. :: : :: ": ,:i <br /> Ultimately, there w~is no cvide~i~c~ H~arriS was treated differently from simi- <br />larly-situated individuals.. : i ! ~ } <br />see also: Pick-N-Pull A~Ut° D~,~n~an.~tle~r$ v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City <br /> <br />see also: Ma~uire Oil ~o:, ~. ti{ df HqustOn, 69 S. W. 3d 350 (2002). <br /> <br />Variance -- Man's ~ has Sari arid i,~ect allergies <br />Claims this Uniquely' ~htittes: hi~ tb a ivariance <br />Citation: The City of Alamo)Heights v.i Boyar, COurt of Appeals of Texas, 4th <br />Dist., San Antonio, N~! m;o~:O,o~79;Cv (2004)' <br />TEXAS (01/05/05) --~er bUy!rig a ~ndominium, Boyar proceeded to com- <br />pletely enclose his backyard.~i¢¢crdens. He claimed his property suffered <br />from various intmsmn~ from: th~ ne,~.~bors, including .noise, light, debris, in- <br />sects, rodents, and treSpasSers. H~e bui~his screened structure withoUt a build- <br />ingpermit. ; : i :~ :i <br /> After the screen w~ c°mplgted,B~yar applied for a building permi[. The <br />city denied the permit! beca%~ the: S~uCture encroached on the property's <br />required yard setbackS.! i :;' ! ~ <br />Boyar then applieC[for,a v~',~¢e. Fie claimed his wife suffered from insect <br />and sun allergies, and ~ese allergiesgake him aunique reason for the variance. <br />The zoning board denied Boyar?~ ~eq~st. <br />Boyar sued, and die coUrt ruled in his favor. <br />© 2005 Ouinlan Publishing GtO~: AnY re~odLJClf.~ !is ~l~'ohibJled. For more inlorma/ion please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />143 <br /> <br /> <br />