Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2006

Home

Page 2 - July lO, 2006 Z.B. Varianc~ - Aggrieved neighbor claims variance not supported by evidence Parties agree development could proceed without it Citation: Auerbach v. City of Miami, Court of Appeal of Florida, 3rd Dist., No. 3D05-1376 (2006) FLORIDA (05/24/06) - 02, LLC, wanted to build a residential project in the city of Miami. The city commission granted a major use special permit and a zoning variance to facilitate the project. Auerbach, an aggrieved neighbor, challenged the variance. He claimed that there was no discernible reason to grant a variance along with the major special use permit. Itnportantly, he claimed that the project could be completed without the variance. Auerbach sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. Auerbach appeated. He argued that there was no support for the variance, which required a demon- stration of unusual hardship. DECISION: Reversed. The variance should not have been granted. There was undisputed evidence that the variance, which resulted in permis- sion for the developer to build to the lot line contrary to otherwise applicable setback requirements, was totally unsupported by the 1egaI hardship require- ment by the governing city ordinance. This point was admitted directly at oral argument, and the city acknowl- edged that the original plan of the project did not include the variance and that the development could go forward without it. This demonstrated conclusively that the indispensable requirement for a hardship variance - that no reason- able use could be made of the property without it - did not exist. . . .see also: Miami-Dade County v.' Omnipoint Holdings Inc., 863 So.2d 195 (2003). Nonconforming Use - Zoning administrator grants permit bringing outdoor club into conformance Mistakenly-issued permit challenged by neighbors Citation: In re Appeal of William Smith, Supreme Court of Vermont, No. 2005- 062 (2006) VERMONT (04/24/06) - The Chittenden County Fish and Game Club was a private club that had operated in the town of Richmond for over 70 years. The club had shooting ranges, fishing areas, hiking .trai1s, and campsites for use by its members. In 1969, the town adopted a zoning ordinance that d~sig- nated the club property and the surrounding area as a residential-agricultural district. Since that time, the club operated as a nonconforming use. However, out- door recreational facilities, such as the club's, would be allowed only if approved by the town's development review board. Since 1969, the club 86 @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. ../' r \~~