Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2007

Home

;----- Ii '\ \ i' ,I II ,I 11 I, I I I I, I' r--,. ( ') I i. I, I' I. i , I I' i I . I ) \.-".:.... November 15, 2007\ Volume 1\ No. 22 family residences. The city's land use regulations permitted a number of "uses by exception," but, notably, the code did not permit the operation of a private club. Importantly, a private club was expressly included as a permissible use by exception within other land use categories. While zoning authorities were vested with broad authority, the court noted that it had previously rejected attempts to rezone property where the intended use was not permitted by the comprehensive plan, "either specifically or by reasonable implication." Further, the zoning code also provided that it "[was] not the intent to utilize the Planned Up..it Devel- opment district solely to diminish the usual application of the provisions of the Zoning Code." Finally, when considering a planned unit development, the zoning code required the city to consider whether the proposed rezoning was consistent with the comprehensive plan. Because the club was essentially a private operation in violation of the comprehensive plan, and the cre- ation of a planned unit development that intended to evade such vio- lations was not allowed, the appeals court reversed the decision of the lower court. Conditional Approval-Homeowner contests conditional project approval based on certain design features Town claims features inconsistent with accessory use Citation: Rendely v. Town of Huntington, 2007 WL 3025830 (N. Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007) NEW YORK (10/16/07)-Rendely owned property in. a residential dis- trict in the town of Huntington. She applied to the zoning board of ap- peals for the necessary permits to construct an accessory building on her property. Under the town's zoning regulations, and accessory use was de- fined as "a subordinate building, the use of which [would be] clearly in- cidental to or customarily found in connection with the main building." A hearing was held, and the board approved Rendely's application- with conditions. Specifically, the design features that were the subject of the conditions were: a fireplace or wood burning stove, fixed interior stairs, and a second floor. The board found that these features were not allowed under the definition of an accessory use building. Rendely appealed the board's decision with regard to the conditions to court. The trial court granted Rendely's petition in part, annulling the conditions on the design features named above. The court affirmed a condition imposed by the board that provided the proposed building could not be used as a habitable living space. 5 53