This post was written by Tyler Doan, Esq.
The petitioners initially opposed granting an exception to local zoning regulations to allow a converted church in a single-family living area to be used as a “small gathering space” for community events such as weddings and baby showers and class reunions. After a public hearing, the Adjustment Board granted an exception.
The applicant then filed a writ of certiorari challenging the board’s decision. The district court concluded the council “did not act illegally in granting the exception.” The applicant then appealed to the current court on the grounds that there was no power to grant an exemption and that the board had mistakenly concluded that there were sufficient parking lots available to accommodate commercial activity.
The Court in upholding the District Court’s decision that the Council has the authority to grant exceptions, reasoned that based on statutory authority which gives broad authority to the Adjustment Council to grant special utilization permits, and the Petitioner relied on parts of the zoning which could not be applied. code for special use instead of exceptions, the board has the authority to grant exceptions.
In determining that there is sufficient parking space, the Court first considers the issue of whether the question of parking is properly defended at the appellate level. The court determined that since the parking issue was brought up and decided at the district court level, the problem has been maintained. In determining that there was sufficient parking space, the Court reasoned that according to the diagram recorded, a letter from the caretaker discussing the 84 years of service that the house was used as a church and that there was always sufficient parking space for church activities, and the Respondent discussed with the council to limit the number of people in a household to 30 for liability purposes, there is substantial evidence to support the council’s finding that there was adequate parking.
Finally, the Court ruled that because there was no evidence of “grave negligence” on board that did not require adequate parking space, the applicant was not entitled to attorneys’ fees.
Becker v Dallas Bord of Adjustments, 2023 WL 3612396 (IA App. 24/5/2023)