10-29-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. .Te anlie Mabu: Fl October 17, 19R4 Page 3 Howevei, courts are most likely to support granting a vari.ar,ce when it is shown that thr, anplican t has owned the property for a considerable period of time, Frefcfably since prior to the adoption of the zonir:y ordinance. The courts have not looked favorably tipon person who have: recently acquired prcperty or whose (,.,i ectiA,ris have placed themselves in a rositi.on of needing a variance. In the current case there is some c'ispute with regard to what the applicant knew prior to purchasing the lot at the tax forfeit sale. The applicant has indicated that he spoke to an unidentified person at City Hall who said that there would be 'no problem" with developing the lot. However, the Zoning Administrator indicated in her report of April 18, 1984, that she told the applicant that a variance would be nece,--.ry. Such a statement would indicate that the lot was not buildable as of ri(jht. The sequence of these answers is unclear but the clear implication is that Lre applicant realized or shc:uld have realized prior to purchasinc; the lot that Yle might not be allowed to develop it. Perhaps the more re'-evant question would be what would a prudent person in the e.pplicant.'s position do to estab- lish the builaability of the lot. what a reasonable perscri would do under such circumstances r.et)ends on a number of factors, including the general f. i.arity of the buyer wit development oract )ugh pro- perties go ta> `crfeit for a nur. rea .,s, one of the primary causes is that the 11 iot developable. Anyone who acquires a property or. ..rfeiturc should _.aspect this as a problem arid dig .,tly research the issue. 'Phe applicant has placed himself at risk by his own actions and shoul6 not now be able to use that as a reason to short circuit the normal evaluation process required by the Council for all variances. The courts in New York hi,,e also dealt with this situation frt:Iuently and have adopted a position which is not sympathe'_ic to that of the present applicant. In Cowen v. V'e:.n, 363 N.E.2d 305 (N.Y. 1977), a variance app-Meant 0,ased ut a tax sale a property which cont:ineo approximately theee-quarters of the required lot .:e3. Commentn the question of self created hardship, she Cour I "moreover, the manner in which petiti: er acquirer. property, by purchase at a tax