Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2003

Home

210 Page 4- March 10, 2003 of height restr/ct/ons, he applied for a variance from the Board of Land and Natural Resources. The board denied the variance. Noh sued, arguing the board abused its discretion and the height restriction was unduly burdensome. · The court ruled in favor of the board. Noh appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, Noh was not entitled to the variance. Noh built a house on his property in compliance with the height restriction and lived in the house for 20 years beforehe sought to build mn additional story. There was no apparent unnecessary hardship. The problems Noh complained of were self-created because Noh was aware of the heiglxt restriction when he built the house and could have anticipated potential problems on his property. In fact, he selected a property and constructed a building in such a-way that a variance was required for any additions. The board had to balance the needs of residents and neigt~bors, as well as the needs of residents and the general public. Because Noh's house was on one of the uppermost lots of the subdivision on Diamond Head's slope, any in- crease in height would raise the profile of the subdivision' as a whole and in- trude upon the public's view of Diamond Head. Protecting the view of Diamond Head, perhaps the most recognizable land- mark in the state, was more important than Noh!s desire for a better view and increased breeze. Citation: Nob v. Young, Supreme Court of Hawaii, No. 23]09 (2003). see alao: Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 953 P'2d ]3]5 (]998). Signs -- Township orders property owner to remove billboard immediately Property owner claims he must receive just compensation first lvIICHIGAN (01/22/03) -- Lamar Advertising Company built and maintained billboards. One of its billboards was less than 75 feet fi:om an interstate boundary. Larnar did not own the land the billboard stood on. The land was leased from the property owner, and the billboard itself was the personal property of Lamar. The billboard became a nonconforming use in 1993. Since the billboard was previously conforming, state law said the billboard could remain in place. However, Clinton Township had an informal policy of ruing to remove non- conforming billboards. The owner of the property applied for a variance for a new building and parldng lot in connection with Ns veterinary clinic. The townstzip ~anted the variance, but required the property owner to remove the billboard w.hen the existing lease expired.