Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2006

Home

Pag~ 6--F~bruary 10, 2006 ZJ3, able square on lots within the properties' particular zoning district. However, because of the utility easement, the 150-foot square could not be located on proposed lot A. A variance, therefore, was needed to build M & E's proposed residential dwelling. Ultimately, the zoning board held a hearing and ~anted M'& E's variance request. Vine, a neighboring property owner, sued. The court ruled in favor of the board. V'me appealed, arguing the variance was based purely on economic profit and could not be justified. DECISION: Reversed. The zoning board of appeals could grant a variance only on the finding of exceptional or unusual circumstances. The restrictions imposed by the zoning regulations caused only some fi- nancial deprivation. Although M & E could not build two homes, one on pro- posed lot A and one on proposed lot B, as a result of the utility easement, that deprivatioh did not warrant a variance. A zo~ng regulation that prevents land from being used for the ~eatest economic potential, by itself, fails to create the unusual type of f'mancial hard- snip necessary to support a variance. M & E retained the ability to develop and use the properties in a manner consistent with the existing zoning regulations. For example, a single large home with a significant amount of surrounding land could be constructed on the proposed lots without the need for a variance. The additional land on proposed lot A could be an attractive feature to the owner of a home built on proposed lot B. The fact that zoning restrictions could burden the properties or cause them to fall short of M & E's expectations with respect to their economic value did not justify the board's decision to grant a variance. see alao: Stancuna v. Zoning Board of Appeala, 785 A. 2d 601 (2001). see alao: New Haven v. Bonner, 863 A.2d 680 (9_005). Vested Right -- Developer claims government employees made zoning assurances Developer told the properS, was properly zoned Citation: The Westchester Company LLC v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at ~Vashville, No. M2004-O2391- COA-R3-CV (2005) TENNESSEE (12/20/05) -- Prior to purchasing a particular piece of property, The Westchester Company LLC performed a good faith investigation of its adequacy for residential, multi-use development. On two separate occasions 96 © 2008 Quinlan Pul]lishin~o Group, Any reproduction is prohibite{l. For more informaIion please call (617) 542-0048.