Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2005

Home

Page 6 -- February 25, 2005 The city subsequently appealed. DECISION: Reversed, The variance should not have been granted. In order to justify a variance, a hardship must not be. self-imposed or finan- cial, and it must relate to a unique condition of the property, Importantly, it must not be personal in nature. Boyar's hardship was clearly personal in nature. Boyar claimed his wife 'would not be able to .enjoy the use of her backyard without the screened-in structure due to her sun and insect allergies.'Such hardship was unique to Mrs. Boyar and not a condition of the property. Additionally, althofigh Boyar would suffer.a financial hardship if he had to move the fence, this financial loss alone was insufficient to justify a variance. see als.o: Board of Adjustment v. Wende, 92 & W. 3d 424 (2002). see also: Gables Realty Limited Partnership v. Travis Central Appraisal District, 81 S. W. 3d 869 (2002). Easement-- Homeowner claims implied easement for light and air Neighbor's improvements block window Citation: Hefazi v. SrigIitz, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. 03-CV- 550 (2004) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (12/02/04) --Hefazi and S tiglitz lived in adjacent townhouses that had once been part of a single property; however, When the property was divided, no easements were recorded. Hefazi rented apartments in the bottom floors of his townhouse. Stiglitz received building permits to improve his property; however, these improvements would seal a window in the west wall of Hefazi's townhouse. This window provided light and air for one of the first-floor apartments. Hefazi sued to block the improvements, and the court ruled in favor of Stiglitz. Hefazi appealed, arguing he had an implied easement to the light and air from the sealed west-wall window. DECISiON:Affirmed. There was no implied easement. In general, if a grantor intended to reserve any right over the property granted, it was his or her duty to reserve it expressly in the grant, Here, there were no easements granted in the original division of the property. If an easement were reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the estate retained by the grantor, an easement could be recognized. The term "neces- sary'' meant there could be no other reasonable mode of enjoying the property without this easement. There was no indication that enforcing the implied easement to light and air 144 © 2005 Quinlan Put}lishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.