Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

Page 6 --June 25, 1999 Z.B. //Z_ The village opposed the enclosure, claiming it would violate the town's zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance prohibited lodging or sleeping in beach club facilities. The building department denied Sunny's variance request. The beach club applied to the zoning appeals board for a permit to enclose the porch, claiming it didn't need a variance from the town. The club claimed the caretaker's residence, with its attached sundeck, was a permitted accessory use under the town's building ordinance. The board agreed, and granted the club a permit to enclose the porch. The village appealed to court. The court reversed the zoning board's deci- sion and annulled the permit. According to the court, the beach club couldn't enclose the porch without first getting a variance because the town zoning ordinance prohibited sleeping in beach club facilities. The board appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The beach club could enclose the sundeck. The board properly determined the beach club didn't need a variance. The caretaker's residence and the attached sundeck were., incidental to the property's permitted use as a beach facility, and thus were an accessory use. Accessory uses could be changed as a matter of right, so the beach club didn't need a variance to enclose the sundeck. Citation: Incorporated I4llage of Atlantic Beach v. Zotffng Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Div., 2nd Dept., No. 98-02994 (1999). Demolition -- Owner claims court had no authority to order him to demolish buildings PENNSYLVANIA (3/22/99) -- White owned several lots on the same city block in Philadelphia. The city determined one of White's lots was in serious disrepair and had numerous code violations. The city sued White, seeking a court order requiring him to repair or de- molish the property. At a hearing, the city raised issues concerning other lots White owned on the same city block. The city claimed all of the properties were in such disrepair that they posed a threat to public safety. The court pointed out the other properties weren't mentioned in the city's complaint against White and granted the city's request to an;i'~nd its original complaint to include the other properties as well. The city, however, never actually amended its original complaint. The court continued to hear testimony regarding the original property as well as the other properties and ordered White to demolish the property the city originally cited. The court issued a separate order requiring White to stop the violations on the other properties)It set a hearing date to ensure White complied with its orders. White failed to correct the violations on the other properties, and the court later ordered White to demolish the additional properties.