Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin county argued, and the COurT agreed, that the definition became accepted as final -when iT was not comesred within the allotted tillie. The rationale bellli-:ld rhis procedure was to give the board of adjust- ment a chance to review a challenged action before any legal proceedil-:lgs began. There was a general precedent in zonil-:lg cases giving administra- tive bodies broad discretion, and parties that disagreed with zoning deci- sions usually had to exhaust their acLrninistrative appeals before initiating Calli"""! proceedings. Here, the court noted that because "an appeal from an administrative decision [was] a matter of legislative grace and not a right, the failure to follow the sramtory guidelines for an appeal [was] fatal." iillen argued that he did not appeal rhe zoning orncer's interpretation to rhe board because it was only required if her actions were taken within her authority. MIen claimed thar rhe stamtory appeal procedure did not apply because the officer had exceeded her authority, but the courr was not persuaded by this argument. The court was neither compelled by Al- len's claim that the board's decision to grant the conditional use permit was an unconstitutional exercise of arbitrary power. The county zoning code specifically gave the board of adjustment [he authority IO grant con- ditional use permits under certain circumstances; rhe tecord here showed that the board had followed all of the guidelines set forth under the code and that the permit was granted properly. Finding no error of law or abuse of discretion on the part of the board or lower COUrT, the decisions of both were affirmed. See also: Yaylonl. Duke, 896 S.W.2d 618 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995). Variance--property does not meet setback requirement by 3.2 feet Board rr",ice denies property owner's variance request Citation: Mueller 1/. Moorestov.m Yp. Zoning Ed., 2007 WL 1930451 (N.]. Super. Ct. App. Diy. 2007) :N'EW JERSEY (07/0S/07)-Mueller bought twO acres of property in a residential zone in Moorestown To",^'nship. The zone required a mini- mum lot size of 150 feet with a front setback of 50 feet. Mueller's lot had a width of 146.80 feet at the setback line; in order to build a house on the lot, a 3.2 foot variance was required. Mueller applied w me to"WTIship zoning board for the variance, and a hearing was held. The board denied the variance, and Mueller appealed to court. The COUIT returned me case to the board with the instruction to hold another hearLl1g for the purpose of hearing "additional relevant evidence including, but not limited to, the establishment of the location of the proposed single family residence" on the lot. In accordance wim the order, another board hearing was held. Miller, a li- censed pro"fessional planner since 1971, testified at both board hearings in fa- vor of the variance. According to Miller, the variance was necessary because of the shape of the lot and because Mueller's lot would be unusable WithOUT a variance; it was located in a residential zone and could only be used for a residence. 11iller stated that Mueller's was a "classic hardship" case. 6 118