Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

z.go August 25, 1999 -- Page 5 pointing out his next door neighbor had a deck just like his. The court affirmed the zoning board's decision. Cassano appealed again. DECISION: Reversed. Cassano was entitled to a variance. The board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Cassano showed that at least nine houses in his immediate neighborhood, including the house next door to his, had similar decks with similarly deficient setbacks. Under these circumstances, it was an abuse of the board's discretion to deny the variance Cassano requested. Citation: Cassano v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated V~llage of Bayville, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Div., 2nd Dept., No. 98- 07162 (1999). see also: Brownlie v. Bake~; 670 N.Y.S. 2d 216. Accessory Use ~ Neighbors claim maintenance building isn't accessory use for golf course NEW HAMPSHIRE (7/21/99) -- The Concord Country Club proposed build- ing an 8,000-square-foot maintenance building for its golf course. The build- ing would house maintenance equipment, fertilizer, and other supplies needed to maintain the golf course. The proposed location was on the opposite side of a knoll and about 280 feet from the nearest house. The building would be in a residential country district, which allowed country clubs and golf courses as a matter of right. The zoning board conditionally approved the club's plan, and the planning board later granted full approval. According to the zoning and planning boards, the building was an accessory use and therefore permitted by right. The zoning ordinance allowed accessory uses and structures "of a nature incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure." Several residents of an adjacent neighborhood sued the city, challenging its*- approval of the country club's proposal. They claimed the proposed mainte- nance building wasn't a permitted accessory use to a golf course under the zoning ordinance, which they said allowed only the specific accessory uses listed in its "Table of Uses." The court affirmed the board decision, finding the maintenance building was a legitimate accessory use to a golf course. According to the court, the country club's proposed maintenance building was "incidental and subordi- nate'' to the operation of a golf course, so it was allowed. The neighbors appealed again. DECISION: Affirmed. The proposed maintenance building was a legitimate accessory use. The zoning ordinance expressly allowed country clubs and golf courses as a matter of right, and this included the country club's proposed maintenance /43