01/23/2002 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

building. 19. Raleigh's application sought to reduce the required number of parking spaces for the construction of a proposed 100,800 square foot storage and office building on the Premises. 20. In addition, the construction of a larger then permitted building given the configuration of the lot creates erosion, flooding, and damage to adjacent property. 21. Essentially, if every land owner in a C-2 Zoning District was permitted to build a larger building than the lot could accommodate and create its own hardship by building on parking area, the overall effect would tend to diminish the value of parcels in that district that comply with zoning derogate from the intent of the Bylaw and create a parking shortage within the zoning district. 22. By varying the parking requirements and allowing over development of the buildings, the Zoning Board of Appeals has created a situation where the parking requirements under the bylaw are not met and would diminish his property value based upon the over development of the Premises. 23. Raleigh has the ability to comply in all respects with the Zoning Bylaw. 24. On or about January 23, 2002, the matter came to be heard before the Zoning Board of Appeals and its individual members listed as Defendants. I, 25. Raleigh argued at the hearing that based upon unique features on the property pertaining to its shape,topography, and soil conditions, it should be allowed to construct a larger building with less parking. Raleigh alleged a hardship as a result of the conditions owing to the lot. I ill 26. In reality, Raleigh could have complied in all respects with the Zoning Bylaw by reducing the size of its building and constructing the required parking. By enlarging the size of its building, Raleigh created its own hardship. 27. The Trust and other abutters are adversely affected by the Zoning Board of Appeals' actions in permitting the oversized building. The Trust and other abutters have built on I' their land based upon similar soil, topography, and shape variations, and have designed buildings which comply. WI 28. The Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the variance on January 23, 2002 and in doing so exceeded its authority by finding that the shape and topography effect the lot. As well, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that the soil conditions dictate where the buildings can be located, ignoring the reality that parking could also be constructed in Page -3-