Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

Z.B. July 1 O, 2002 -- Page 7 Budget appealed the decision to the county, court, arzuina the board's deci- sion was unconstitutional, arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by the pre- ponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing. The court disa~eed, find- mg Budget failed to show sufficient practic~, difficult/es and had partially cre-. ated some of its difficulties by purchasing the .property in a low area. It also found Budget had failed to show the .restrictions had any effect on its profits. Budget appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The court approved the board's denial of Budget's variance request. In Ohio, property owners seeking area vahances did not. have.to show "un- necessary hardship" would result if the variance were denied, but did have to show they would suffer practical difficulties. The court, had to consider several factors in making its determination, including whether there was another ben- eficial use for the property in' question, whether the variance request was sub- stantial, whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be altered or adjoining property would suffer substantially if the variance was granted, whether the property owner had purchased the property knowing of the zoning restriction, and whether the property, owner's prediczunent could be solved through other means. The boards' determinations in these matters were to be presumptively con- sidered valid, and Budget had the burden of proving otherwise. Here, the vari- ances Budget sought were substanti~. Budget did not show it had suffered practical dii21culties without the variance. Budget sold thousands of cars each year, and a small portion of its customers actually ca.me from advertising; more came from an adjacent dealership, through referrals, or were repeat customers. Budget failed to show how more si=o-ns would increase its sales. Moreover, Budget knew about the restrictions when it purchased the property. "Practical difficulties" was based upon find/ng a restriction unreasonably dephved a proP- erty owner from use of his property. BUdget .Was not .entitled to. the greatest possible benefit from the use of the property. Citation: B~dget Car Sales v. Vfllage of Groveport Board of Zoning APpeals, Court of Appeals of Ohio, J Oth App. Dist., Franklin Co., No. 01AP-932 (2002). Rezoning -- Property owner asks to change zoning from residential to h/ghway commercial : Argued planning board's inconsistent rec'ornrnendations rendered commissioner's decision arbitrary and capricious MONTANA (6/4/02) -- Englin acqu/red property located in Yellowstone County by inheritance [n I982. At that t/rile, the property was zoned as ReSidential-9600, which allowed single-fa~nity homes no smaller than 9;600 square feet~ The property was bordered on one side by a trucking company and a storage fac/Iity. for a local limousine service, zoned for commercial use. A single family home, a vacant lot. and a church 'also bordered the property., all zoned Residential-9600: In 1989, Englin applied for a zone change from Residential'9600 to high- 115