Landmark Universal, Inc. v. Pitkin County Bd. of Adjustment
| Decision Date | 09 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-298,77-298 |
| Citation | 40 Colo.App. 444,579 P.2d 1184 |
| Parties | LANDMARK UNIVERSAL, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Defendant-Appellee. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Nicholas W. Goluba, Jr., Glenwood Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.
Sandra M. Stuller, Aspen, for defendant-appellee.
From a district court judgment affirming the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment's ruling denying plaintiff, Landmark, Inc., a variance from certain zoning requirements pertaining to the required depth of front and back yards, plaintiff appeals. We reverse.
The parties stipulated that plaintiff owned 9 lots in Holland Heights, Basalt Subdivision, which was zoned for residential uses and which final plat was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 27, 1972; that on July 2, 1973, the Board of County Commissioners passed an ordinance establishing that the front yard of any house must have a minimum depth of 200 feet and a rear yard set back of at least 20 feet; that each of plaintiff's lots has a depth of 220 feet, 200 feet of which is consumed by the minimum front yard requirement and 20 feet of which is consumed by the minimum rear yard set back requirement.
Plaintiff did not own the lots at the time of the passage of the Pitkin County ordinance but acquired them on August 19, 1974, and made application for the variance on February 27, 1976. The Board of Adjustment denied the application based on the fact that plaintiff had shown only self-induced hardship.
The Pitkin County Land Use Code provides in effect that where a physical characteristic such as the size, shape, or topography of a piece of property which existed at the time of the enactment of the zoning regulation and which was not created by the applicant subsequent to the adoption of the regulation would result in undue hardship upon the owner of such property, the Board has the authority, upon appeal, to authorize a variance, provided relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
The trial court, in sustaining the order of the Board of Adjustment denying the application, ruled that since the plaintiff had bought the property subsequent to the zoning ordinance and with knowledge of the zoning, any hardship on the plaintiff was self-imposed, and that thus it was not entitled to relief. We disagree.
The ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cottonwood Farms v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Jefferson, 86SC218
...some displacement of private ownership, occupation or management).6 Nollan is consistent with Landmark Universal, Inc. v. Pitkin County Bd. of Adjustment, 40 Colo.App. 444, 579 P.2d 1184, cert. denied (1978) (self-inflicted hardship doctrine inapplicable to an owner of residential property ......
-
Dallmeyer v. Lacey Tp. Bd. of Adjustment
...deprived of all beneficial use of his property a variance must be granted to avoid a confiscation. Landmark Universal, Inc., v. Pitkin Bd. of Adj., 40 Colo.Ct.App. 444, 579 P.2d 1184 (1978); Russell v. D.C. Bd. of Adj., 402 A.2d 1231 (D.C.1979); Anon v. City of Coral Gables, 336 So.2d 420 (......
-
City of Coral Gables v. Geary
...See 2 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning & Planning, c. 48, p. 48-20 (3d ed. 1966). (e. s.) Accord, Landmark Universal, Inc. v. Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, 40 Colo.App. 444, 579 P.2d 1184, 1185 (1978) ("If a prior owner would have been entitled to a variance at the time the zoning ordinance was......
-
McDowell v. U.S.
...although setback requirements are frequently enacted in the form of a zoning ordinance, see Landmark Universal, Inc. v. Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, 40 Colo.App. 444, 579 P.2d 1184 (1978), setback requirements are not necessarily zoning matters. Kipp v. Incorporated Village of Ardsley......