485 So. 2d 1158 | Ala. Civ. App. | 1985
This is a zoning case.
Mary Chapman appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Mobile County, which affirmed the decision of the Board of Adjustment for the City of Mobile. In January 1984, the Board of Adjustment (Board) granted a side yard variance to Mrs. Chapman's neighbors, the Hallets. Mrs. Chapman contends on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error in granting the variance to the Hallets. We find that the trial court did not commit reversible error and affirm.
The case involves the following pertinent facts:
In October 1983, Henry and Clara Hallet began construction of a utility building and storage area at the end of the carport at their residence in Mobile, Alabama. Mary Chapman, the Hallets' next-door neighbor, complained about the construction to the Inspection Service Department of the City of Mobile. After Mrs. Chapman's complaint, Mr. Hallet received notice that he would have to obtain a building permit. Hallet attempted to obtain a permit and learned that he would have to apply for a side yard variance to construct the utility building closer than eight feet to his property line. He applied for the variance, and on January 9, 1984, the Board granted the requested variance. The Inspection Service Department then granted a building permit, and the Hallets completed construction of the utility building.
Unknown to the Hallets, Mrs. Chapman appealed the order of the Board to the Circuit Court of Mobile County. The Hallets were not notified of the appeal and proceeded with the construction of the building as authorized by the building permit. Mrs. Chapman made no further complaint to the Hallets and did not advise them of her appeal. *1160
In a zoning case, the primary question is whether, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of a zoning ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. Pipes v. Adams,
Mrs. Chapman claims that the trial court erred in holding that the Hallets' situation posed an unnecessary hardship which entitled them to a variance from the city zoning ordinance. She claims that the hardship claimed by the Hallets is one of necessity and convenience and is self-created or self-inflicted. Therefore, Mrs. Chapman contends that the Hallets have suffered no unnecessary hardship and are not entitled to a variance.
We cannot say from the particular facts of this case that the trial court erred in finding that an unnecessary hardship existed. From the evidence previously related the court could find that the Hallets, in good faith, relied on the building permit that they received and completed construction of the utility building without receiving notice of an appeal from Mrs. Chapman; thus supporting the conclusion that an unnecessary hardship existed for the Hallets. The trial court relied on the case of Board of Zoning Adjustment v. Boykin,
Trial courts may also consider whether granting a variance will be contrary to the public interest (and the interest of the people in a given use district). Priest v. Griffin,
We are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.