Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/1997

Home

Z.B. May 25, 1997 - Page 7 because he didn't believe it was made in good faith. The zoning board decided that the contamination prevented Irwin Associates from developing the land for residential purposes. It also agreed the costs of environmental cleanup would be prohibitive. The board granted ~he variances, finding that Irwin Associates didn't create its hardship, and that the variances wouldn't be detrimental to the neighborhood. The civic council appealed to a court. Irwin Associates had an environmental con~ultant testify that the cost of rehabilitating the land would be high, ranging from $2.5 to $3 million. A real estate financing expert also testified on the company's behalf, saying financial institutions would be reluctant to fund con- struction on the property because of liability concerns. Irwin Associates' presi- dent said the lot's small size precluded it from supporting other permitted uses. The trial court affirmed the board's decision. It said the contaminated property could 'not be used for any purpose allowed by the zoning ordinance because the cost would be too expensive. The court concludedlrwiiTAssociates should be granted the variances because it showed unnecessary hardship. The civic council appealed again, and the appeals court reversed the decision. According to the court, Irwin Associates could not claim the land was valueless when it turned down an offer for the property. Irwin Associates appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the appeals court. To get a variance, a property owner had to show that an unnecessary hardship would result without the variance, and that the variance would coexist with the public interest. However, a property owner didn't need to establish that the land was completely valueless without a variance. The appeals court shouldn't have expected Irwin Associates to try to sell the property before requesting a variance - especially for an offer less than half of the land's original value. hwin Associates' refusal to sell the property could not be used as a reason.to deny the variance. Irwin Associates proved it needed a variance. The environmental consultant, the financial expert and the company president himself all testified that, short of spending millions of dollars, it would have been impossible to use the land for a permitted activity. Because Irwin Associates proved unnecessary hardship, it was entitled to the variance. Mobile Home - Can mobile home lots exist in residential zone? In reAppeal of Lunde, 688 A.2d 1312 (Vermont) 1997 Fecteau Construction owned lan~ in a residential district in Barre, Vt. Lunde owned property next to Fecteau's land. Fecteau got permission from the city's planning commission to divide its land into two lots. Fecteau sold an option to buy the first lot, guaranteeing the buyer a permit to place a mobile home on the lot. A few years later, the city granted approval for a mobile home with a 27-foot setback. S,=, Lunde and others appealed the permit to the zoning board, which upheld . 'w