Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

--'" Z-B. \ November 10, 2006-Page5 land located in the village of Flower Hill. The property was located on a steep slope and was part of a subdivision that had been approved in 1996. In 2003, Han applied for a varianceto construct a single-family home on his property that exceeded the village's maXimum height limitation. He also wanted to construct a six-to 12- foot retaining wall. A neighboring property owner, Margaritis, sued the board to annul the variance. The trial court found that the board's decision to grant the variance was arbitrary and capricious, and it was rescinded. Han appealed. DECISION:Affinned. It was wen established that zoning boards, when making a determination as to whether to grant a variance, had to balance the benefit to the applicant against any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. A zoning board's decision was generally upheld - as long as it was a rational decision and not arbitrary or capricious. Here, the board failed to make any specific fmdings of fact or state any basis upon which it had reached its decision. There was no indication that the board considered any possible adverse effects of the construction of a six- to 12-foot retaining wall, or whether or not Han's requirements could be satisfied by a method other than the granting of a variance. Accordingly, the trial court's decision was affirmed. see also: Fox Run Woods Bldrs. C01p. v. Duncan, 673 N.Y.S.2d 740 (1998). see also: Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 657 N.E.2d 254 (1995). Special Use - City appeals decision allowing business permits to sell alcoholic beverages Argues enough businesses in the area sell liquor already Citation: Costco Wholesale Corporation v. City of Livonia, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 258990 (2006) MIClllGAN (09/14/06) - Costco Wholesale Corporation had two stores lo- cated in the city of Livonia. Both stores had specially designated merchant licenses, which permitted the sale of beer and wine. Costco sought permission from the city to sell alcoholic beverages, other than beer and wine, with specially designated distributor (SDD) licenses. In order to obtain the SDD license, Costco was required to obtain a waiver from the city's planning commission. Costco flied an application for a waiver on both properties. The planning commission denied both applications, and Costco appealed the decision to the city council. The city council also denied Costco's applications. Costco then appealed to court, which found in Costco's. favor. The city appealed. @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 69