Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

Page 8 -- May 25, 2005 g.B. acres of land or whether the provision was an absolute maximum, and thus advised Wyman to seek a variance for the proposed expansion. Wyman did not create the hardship because of his failure to plan properly. Therefore, his variance application was supported by good faith. see also: Hill v. Town of Chester, 771 A.2d 559 (2001). see also: D,tff-y v. City of Dover, 818 A.2d 1251 (2003). Variance -- Medical developer requests large number of variances Wants to build much larger offices than allowed under current zoning Citation: Drews v. City of Hattiesburg, Supreme Court of Mississippi, No. 2003-CT-OO823-SCT (2005) MISSISSIPPI (03/31/05) -- Lee Medical Development LLC applied for slx zon- ing variances from the city of Hattiesburg. Lee Medical wanted to build a large medical office project on several lots zoned within a professional business district. The city granted all of the variances. Drews, a neighboring property owner, sued ihe city t6 stop the construc- tion. The court ruled in the city's favor. Drews appealed, arguing the variances caused illegal spot zoning. DECISION: ReverSed. The variances constituted a rezoning in fact, the effect of which was spot zoning. The changes proposed in the six variances were so dramatic that they constituted rezoning to two levels l~eyond the original district of the lots. Con- sequently, the differences between the original zoning and the new zoning were so extreme that they resulted in illegal spot zoning. . The largest building that could be built in the origir~al district was 10,000 square feet. One of the granted variances would allow a single building on ali the lots of 60,000 square feet. The other variances included increasing the maximum allowed building'height by 10 feet (from 35 to 45 feet), reduc- ing the number of parking spaces from 360 to 169, increasing the allowed percentage of impervious surface from 60 to 73 percent, reducing the mini- mum front set back from 25 to 10 feet, and allowing parking spaces in the front set back area. The court determined it was clear the city was attempting to bypass the safeguards provided by the rezoning process in that the need for a varian.ce had to be proven by 0nly a preponderanee of the evidence while the need for rezoning had to be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Ultimately, this was deemed an illegal practice. see also: ?erez v. Garden Isle Communit? Association, 882 So.2d 21_7 (2004). see also: Carpenter v. City of Peta(: 699 So. 2d-'.928 (I997). 92 © 2005 Quinian Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.