Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />Voetsch applied to the town's zoning board of appeals (the board) <br />for area variances for the stockade fence and the parking lot. The <br />board denied the variance to allow the stockade fence. The board <br />granted all remaining variances with respect to the parking lot on <br />condition that Voetsch install a chain across the entrance to the drive- <br />way to prevent overnight parking at all times when the building's of- <br />ficer were not open. <br />Voetsch appealed. The lower court denied the petition and dis- <br />missed the proceeding. Voetsch appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed as modified. <br /> <br />The court concluded that the condition requiring the parking lot's <br />entrance be chained to prevent overnight parking should be invali- <br />dated. The court noted that conditions could be imposed upon the <br />granting of an area variance to preserve the peace, corniort, enjoy- <br />ment, health, or safety of the surrounding area. The court said a <br />zoning board could impose reasonable conditions as were directly <br />related to and incidental to the proposed use of the property. Rea- <br />sonable conditions were those aimed at minimizing the adverse im- <br />pact to an area that might result from the grant of a variance. The <br />court noted there was some rational basis for the condition prohibit- <br />ing overnight parking in that it was directly related and incidental <br />to Voetsch's use and minimized any adverse impact on the neighbor- <br />ing property resulting from the granting of the parking lot variances. <br />However, the court found that there was no rational basis for the <br />condition requiring that the parking lot's entrance be chained to pre- <br />vent overnight parking. <br />The court also concluded that the area variance with respect to the <br />height of the stockade fence was warranted because the town proper- <br />ly applied the town law governing the issuance of area variances and <br />properly balanced competing concerns to reach its determination. <br /> <br />See also: Martin v. Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 34 A.D.3d <br />811, 825 N.Y.S.2d 244 (2d Dep't 2006); Pecoraro v. Board of <br />Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N. Y.3d 608, 781 N. Y.S.2d 234, <br />814 N.E.2d 404 (2004) <br /> <br />.__.. - _.__ __.. ._.. _._." .,..n. _ <br />c_ . ___ .- _ <br /> <br />---"---:-':-""':':::-::.:.;~;,-:---;:."7.J- <br /> <br />-Editorial Qu, estions orCornments:'west~q.iJ.frtlan@ttaomson.~oml=\'&c.; <br />... -- <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />42 <br />