Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin the business; or install any mechanical equipment that was not "nor- mally used for domestic or household purposes. " Lamb appealed the inspector's :finding to the board of zoning ap- peals, which affirmed the decision. Lamb appealed the board's deci- sion to court. Decision: Reversed. The lower court had been charged with reviewing the decision of the hoard. To do so, it was required to examine the "substantial, reliable and probative evidence on the whole record, which in turn necessitate[ d] both factual and legal determii'1ations." The role of the a ppeals court was to review the record of the lower court's decision for the correct application of this standard. On appeal, Lamb argued that the decision of the board had been arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by a preponderance of substantial evidence. Lamb claimed that there was no evidence that she was using the property in any way that required a state or local license. Lamb testified that she rarely saw patients in her home, and she did so only as a convenience to those patients who could not travel to the offices that she maintained in clinics or as part of private prac- tices. She also testified that the work ;she did at home was "not as a dietician, but as a certified diabetes instructor." While the lower court concluded That the board's decision was proper, it clid not point to any evidence upon which it relied. The zoning inspector stated that-except for the fact that Lamb was a li- censed dietician-her home occupatio,n complied with the township's regulations. The evidence established, however, that when Lamb saw clients at her residence, she worked as a diabetes educator, and she did not need a state or local license to do so. The inspector also argued that Lamb had constructed an addi- tional driveway, but the driveway was not affiliated With the busi- ness. Finally, several of Lamb;s neighbors testifies that they were con- cerned that a home busiD.ess would bring additional traffic to their neighborhood, but evidence that showed how infrequently Lamb saw patients at her home mitigated these concerns. In addition, the neighbor's testimony about potentialtramc problems did not prove that Lamb's home occupation violated the regulations. Because the lower court had affirm,ed the board's decision without the necessary supporting evidence, its decision was an abuse of dis- cretion. As such, the appeals court reversed the decision and the case was sent back to the board. 6 40