Katz v. Board of Zoning Adjustments for City of New Orleans
| Decision Date | 09 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 3681,3681 |
| Citation | 232 So.2d 546 |
| Parties | Gerald D. KATZ v. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS FOR the CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, and Messrs. Richard Koch, Claude Kelly, Jack W. Thompson, Jr., Calvin J. Ferran, C. E. Simmons, David A. Kraus, Jr., Members Thereof and Mr. Robert Blank. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Plotkin, Sapir & Bradley, Shirley Ann Basile, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Alvin J. Liska, Posey R. Bowers and Jackson P. McNeely, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.
Before HALL, REDMANN and BARNETTE, JJ.
Relator appeals from a judgment affirming a partial denial by the New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments of his application for allowance of a variance from the city zoning ordinance, art. XXVI, § 5, para. 3.
The ordinance provides, in part, as an exception or modification to use regulations,
'* * * One segment of fence not to exceed seven (7) feet in height may be erected in each required or existing side yard area (whichever is the lesser) of a residential use when placed in an alignment approximately parallel to the front lot line and connecting the main building with a fence on or along the side lot line.'
Relator had constructed a seven-foot concrete block wall atop an existing three-foot high concrete porch, a total height of ten feet. Considered as a part of the dwelling, the wall would have been much too close to the front property line, being only three feet away.
The respondent Board, in order to allow some relief to relator, treated the wall as a fence and granted a variance to allow the fence although it did not connect the main building with a fence on the side lot line. However, the Board refused the variance to allow the full ten feet height, and made its grant enabling the fence to remain dependent on relator's removing the top three feet.
Relator argues his fence is only seven feet high, and that the board erred in measuring height from grade level instead of from his three-foot high porch.
But we find that art. III of the ordinance defines building in its preamble to include the word structure, and expressly defines building in sec. 7 as 'any structure designed or built or used for the support, enclosure, shelter or protection of persons, animals, chattels, or property of any kind.' And sec. 8 defines 'Building, Height of' as 'the vertical distance from the grade to the highest point * * *.'
We conclude the ordinance refers to height from grade in allowing fences to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cromwell v. Ward
...In any case there is no authority on the part of a building inspector to grant a variance.... Katz v. Board of Zoning Adjustments, 232 So.2d 546, 548 (La.App. 4th Cir.1970). See also Klanke v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 83 Pa.Cmwlth. 441, 477 A.2d 907, 909 (1984), and Walkingstick, supra; Xa......
-
Merrihue v. St. Charles Parish Planning & Zoning Dept.
...on a six-acre plot. A self-created hardship does not entitle a landowner to a variance. Katz v. Board of Zoning Adjustments for City of New Orleans, 232 So.2d 546 (La.App. 4th Cir.1970); Sanchez v. Board of Zoning Adjustments, 488 So.2d 1277 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986), writ denied 491 So.2d 24 ......
-
Dahar v. Department of Bldgs. for City of Manchester
...use unaffected by statutory definitions.' Id. at 81, 276 A.2d at 486. It follows that plaintiff's reliance on Katz v. Board of Zoning Adjustments, 232 So.2d 546 (La.App. 1970), is misplaced since that case involved violation of the zoning ordinance and not a Nothing in plaintiff's applicati......