Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/1999

Home

Z.B. November 25, 1998 Page 3 ported by substantial evidence -- the testimony of the borough's zoning of- ricer. There was no ambiguity at all -- "two wires" meant exactly that -- two wires. The requ!rement that a structure not impede or change the direction of water applied to things other than fences, because the ordinance specifically men- tioned fences in the phrase immediately proceeding the one on which Densberger relied. A fence complied w. ith or violated the ordinance based on its classifica- tion as a two-wire fence, not on its ability or inability 'to change the flow of water. see also: Heck v. Zoning Hearing Board for Harvey's Lake, 397A.2d 15 (1979). Parking- Restaurant wants to rely on others' lots to meet parking requirements Citation: Il Classico Restaurant Inc. v. Colin, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Div., 2nd Dept., Nos. 97-07284 & 97-07285 (1998) I1 Classico Restaurant Inc. ran a restaurant in Roslyn Estates, N.Y. The restaurant occupied a one-story building on about one-quarter of an acre of land, which included a small parking lot. The main floor, used as a dining room and a bar, could seat 95 customers. For several years, Classico had used the basement once or twice a week for private parties. Under the village zoning code, each restaurant needed one off-street park- ing space for every 50 square feet of floor area devoted to customers. Although the exact measurements were disputed, according to Classico's figures, its res- taurant needed 21 parking spaces to accommodate the upstairs restaurant and 26 spaces for the downstairs function room. Classico's parking lot had 21 parking spaces, so it applied for a parking variance, allowing it to operate the basement function room. Classico proposed making up the shortage of parking spaces by using neighboring parking lots that were vacant during the evening. Before granting an area variance, the board had to balance the benefit to' the applicant against the detriment to the community. The board had to con- sider whether the variance would adversely impact the neighborhood, whether there were other feasible alternatives that would achieve the intended benefit, whether the requested variance was substantial, and whether the difficulty was self-created. The village zoning board denied Classico's request, finding the requested variance was substantial and would adversely impact the surrounding area. The court recognized the variance would benefit Classico, and the benefit couldn't be achieved by any other means. It also found, however, there was a need to alleviate traffic congestion by requiring adequate parking. Classico sued the board, claiming the board arbitrarily denied its variance request. It asked the court to vacate the board's decision and to order the board to issue a parking variance.