Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

Page 8 -- June 10, 2005 dwarfed his mbre modest structure. While Seate may have needed the garage and may have suffered a profes- sional hardship in its absence, and the character of the neighborhood may not have been affected by his garage, none of these arguments were in the record. The board members appeared to draw on their personal knowledge of Scare and the neighborhood, but this knowledge was not a valid substitute for evidence in the record. Seate was required to place this evidence in the record, and he failed to do so. see also: Appletree Land Development v. Zoning Hearing Board of York Township, 834 A.2d 1214 (2003). see also: Hertz. berg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 721 A.2d 43 (1998). Building Permit w Neighbor claims house too high for ordinance Argues application and measurement incorrect Citation: Sojka v. Zoning Board of Adjustment fo?.HarlaniJ Court of Appeals of Iowa, No. 5-062/03-1227 (2005) ~ IOWA (04/28/05) -- Sojka and Kalkas owned adjoining lots in the residential zone in the city of Harlan, Iowa. Kalkas received a building permit authorizing b2m to move a house and build a garage on his lot. Sojka, who opposed the new house, unsuccessfully appealed the issuance Of the building permit to the zoning board of adjustment. Sojka sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. Sojka appealed, arguing the building perrrfit application was not drawn to scale and the house violated local height regulations. DECISION:Affirmed. The house did not violate the height regulations. Although the applica£ion should have shown certain measurements and been drawn to scale, the real issue was the actual height of the house as placed since it was moved from another location. There was testimony the house was measured from the bottom of the walk- out basement to the top of the peak and that the measurement was 30 feet, six inches. There was also evidence the house was only two and one,half stories, including the basement or cellar, which was defined in the Harlan ordinance as space in the ground under a house. Lastiy,'multiple exhibits showed the house to be one and one-half stories above the basement. Ultimately, there was substantial evidence to find the house did not exceed the two and one-half stories and 35 feet in height allowance under the local ordinance. see also: Lauridsen v. City of Okoboji Board of Adjustment, 554 N.W. 2d 541 (1996). .:. 100 © 2005 Quintan Publishing Group, Any reproduction is prohibited. For more inl'orrnation please call (617) 542-0048,