Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2006

Home

Page 4--April 25, 2006 was composed of blighted areas encoura~ng light industrial and commercial use. Verna sought a variance to allow it to retain an accessory building on its property. Verna had to apply for variance because the building was over three times the size of the maximum square footage allowed by the local zoning code. Verna applied for a variance with the Board of Adjustment (board). Afxer a hearing, the board voted to deny the variance because of the large size of the variance request. Verna sued~ and the court ruled in favor of the board. Verna appealed, arguing that its circumstances entitled it to the variance. DECISION: Reversed. Although the variance was substantial in respect to the maximum square footage, the appeals churl found that the city still should have ~anted it, and that the lower court had erred when it found in favor of the board. The city conceded in its report that granting the variance would have no effect on population density, would place no additional demands on available governmental facilities, and would cause no detriment to the neighborhood because the accessory building already existed. Also, the physical size and location of Verna's property gave rise to practi- cal difficulties. The city agreed that, ~ven the physical characteristics of the site, it was likely that no redevelopment capable of furthering the purpose of the zoning district could be accgmpLished without a variance. [2 The city had suggested that Verna demolish the accessory building and further expand its main building to accommodate Verna's need for welding, heavy equipment repairs, and facility maintenance. However, given that Verna had already anticipated a substantial expansion of the larger building to accom- modate its needs for mater/al usage and equipment storage, demolishing an existing welding building that adequately met its needs for welding and storage was not a sensible option. Not only would Verna be confronted with substan- tial additional expense, it also would face interruption of its welding operations. Ultimately, the board showed no reason why the variance should not have been granted, so the decision was reversed. see also: Charles E Vatterott Construction Co. Inc. v. Rauls, 170 S.W..3d 47 (2005). see also: Lagud v. Kansas City Board of Commissioners, 136 S. W. 3d 786 (2004). Notice -- "Red-tag" notice posted for 180 days after loud party on property~ After expiration, property owner claims notice was unconstitutional Citation: Haggerty v. The City of Tucson, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, No. CIV-04-541 TUC JblR (2006) ARIZONA (02/21/06) -- A police officer was dispatched to Haggerty's property © 2006 Ouinlan Put31ishing Group. Any reproduction ts prohibited. For rno~e information please call (617~ 542-0048. 64