Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2005

Home

August 10, 2005 -- Page 5 rezoning of the property into the R-2 districthad the express purpose of avoiding excessive density in the predominately residential neighborhood. The board's grant of the variance for a proposed building that grossly exceeded the limitations in the R-2 zone significantly altered the township's zoning plan. When the board identified the property in its resolution as ideally suited for a transitional use, the board ignored the fact that the property re- cently had been rezoned to preclude such usage. Thus, the board blatantly rejected the township's zoning plan and improp- erly substituted its idea of what was a proper plan. see also: Victor Recchia Residential Constr~tction Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjttstmen} of Cedar Grove, 768 A.2d 803 (2001). see also: Parttsz,,ewski v. Township of Elsinboro, 711 A.2d 273 (1998). Variance ~ Court uses practical difficulty standard to overturn variance decision Board argues unnecessary hardship is needed Citation: Briggs v. Dinsmore Township Board of Zoning Appeals, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 3rd App. Dist., Shelby County, No. 17-05-01 (2005) OHIO (06/20/05) -- Briggs applied for a building permit to build a new residen- tial home in Dinsmore Township. Although the plans and permits called for.a garage, one wa~ never built. 7 Two years later, the zorfing code was amended to prohibit the construction of garages and outbuildings in the front yards of residences. This amendment.prohib- ited Briggs from building an attached garage at the location on his original plan. In 2004, Briggs wanted to start a metal fabrication business on his property. He filed for a variance, requesting permission to build a separate garage in the front yard of his house. The zoning board ultima[e!y denied the application, finding there was no unnecessary hardship. Briggs sued, and the court ruled in his favor, concluding the board's deci- sion was too restrictive. The board appealed, arguing it used the correct m~thod in determining the variance's' appropriateness. DECISION: Reversed. The lower court used the wrong standard in deciding whether the variance should have been granted. The lower court, in reversing the board's decision, held that in order to grant an area variance to a zoning ordinance; a landowner had to demonstrate practical difficulties; or an unreasonable deprivation caused by a zoning re- quirement, in complying with a zoning regulation. However, under local law, the court determined it was clear Dinsmore was a I:ownship subject to a different standard. Specifically, the Dinsmore Township Zoning Ordinance required an applicant to show necessity and hardship. Us- 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 54.2-0048. 67