Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialzoningregulation

trialwillzoning

Related Cases

Packer v. Hornsby, 221 Va. 117, 267 S.E.2d 140

Facts

In 1968, Dr. and Mrs. Bernard Packer purchased a lot in Virginia Beach that did not conform to the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning ordinance. The City enacted a new zoning ordinance in 1973, increasing the oceanfront setback requirement to 30 feet. The Packers applied for a variance to reduce this setback to 8.1 feet to build an addition to their home, citing hardship due to adjacent property development. The Board of Zoning Appeals initially approved the variance, but this decision was later reversed by the Circuit Court.

In 1968, the Packers purchased one of the six lots situated between 88th and 89th Streets in the northern portion of the City of Virginia Beach. Their lot fronts 50 feet on the ocean and runs west between parallel lines 140 feet to an alley. None of the six lots, all of comparable size, conformed to the minimum lot size requirement of the zoning ordinance in effect in 1968.

Issue

Did the Packers demonstrate unnecessary hardship to warrant a variance from the 30-foot oceanfront setback requirement?

Rule

A variance may be granted when, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, which is defined as a situation where strict application of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property.

The first paragraph of subsection (b) empowers a board to grant a variance when 'owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions (of a zoning ordinance) will result in unnecessary hardship'.

Analysis

The court found that the Packers' desire to build closer to the ocean was based on convenience rather than a legal hardship. The evidence did not support the Board's finding that the Packers faced undue hardship, as they could still expand their home without violating the setback requirement by building to the west. The court emphasized that variances should not be granted merely to allow property owners to conform to the practices of their neighbors.

Proximity to the ocean is doubtless a 'privilege or convenience' coveted by every homeowner along the beach. But a zoning restriction upon that privilege does not constitute an 'unnecessary hardship' within the meaning of Code s 15.1-495(b).

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Board's approval of the variance was plainly wrong and violated the intent of the zoning ordinance.

Accordingly, we will affirm the trial court's judgment that the Board's decision was 'plainly wrong and in violation of the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance'.

Who won?

C. W. Hornsby and Waller J. Roberts prevailed in the case as the court upheld the reversal of the variance approval, emphasizing the importance of adhering to zoning regulations.

C. W. Hornsby and Waller J. Roberts who protested the application.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

A.H. Woods Theatre v. North American Union, 246 Ill.App. 521, 1927 WL 4243

League of Oregon Cities v. State, 334 Or. 645, 56 P.3d 892

Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 48 S.Ct. 447, 72 L.Ed. 842

Wood v. Wood, 283 Ga. 8, 655 S.E.2d 611, 08 FCDR 66

Landings Ass’n, Inc. v. Williams, 291 Ga. 397, 728 S.E.2d 577, 12 FCDR 1892