Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

Page 6 -- August 10, 2002 Z.B Cousin's appealed both decisions to court, but the decisions were al2-mmed. Cousin's appealed again, alleging the interstate (1-70) was not a "street" as ' provided in the statute and the setback requirement did not apply. Also, there were a number of trees that could hide [he sig-n from the residential area. Fi- nally, Cousin's alleged the variance should have been approved'because the existing statute created a "practicald~fflculty.~ " DECISION: Affirmed. Highway 1-70 was intended to be classified as a street and would be sub- ject to the same 150-foot setback as any other traffic way or thoroughfare. Cousin's assertion the sigaa would be visibly blocked because of trees was also rejected., The trees were subject to removal and constituted only a tempo- rary barrier, Finally, Cousin's failed to carry its burden of proof to establish an entitle- ment to an area variance. By its own admission, Cousin's could legally con- struct the sign next to a building and be in compliance with the setback require- ment. However, Cousin's reasoned the views from the building would be di- minished. Cousin's failed to estCblish a "practical'-dLfficulty" to the extent that an area variance would be justified. ' Citation: Cousin's Advertising v. BOard of Zoning Adjustment of Kansas City, Court of Appeals of Missouri, W. Dist., No, WD 6024J (2002). see also: Slate v. Boone Count. Board of Adjr~stme~t, 810 S. W. 2d 361 (J. 99J ). see also: H~ttchens v. St. Louis Count., 848 S. W. 2d 616 (1993). Sp'~dal Permit -- Four parking spaces required for a two-family home Parking of landscaping equipment and trucks on driveway was Prohibited to grant variance NEW YORK (06/17/02) ~ The owner applied for a variance to legalize the occupancy of a two-family home. The structure was located in a B-1 zone and was occupied bytwo or tkzree families, a violation of the local code, since the owner acquired ownership. The owner used the driveway to store landscaping equipment, Commercial trucks, and piCk-up trucks. This use was permitted in a B-1 district. The Board of Zoning & Appeals (]~ZA) noted a concern about parking and pointed to the code, which required four parking spaces for a--two-family home. The BZA granted the variance, provided the owner comply with .the parking re- quirements. All business and commercial parking on the property was prohibited. The owner challenged to parldn~ provision, of the decision. DECISION: Reversed. Outdoor storage of garden supplies and equipment was permitted without a permit in the district. Zoning boards of appeal had '~the authority to impose such reasonable condi- tions and restrictions as -are directly related to and incidental to the proposed use