Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

Page 6 --August 25, 1999 Z.B. building as an accessory use. The building would be used to store lawn mow- ers, fertilizer, and other tools and supplies needed to operate and maintain the golf course. It would occupy only a small portion of the club's property and was designed to serve only the golf course, which clearly showed it was "inci- dental and subordinate" to the golf course. The neighbor's argument that the ordinance allowed only those accessory uses listed in its "Table of Uses" misinterpreted the definition of an accessory use. An a~cessory use of property was, by definition,''one that was not ex- pressly permitted by the ordinance itself. If only those uses listed as accessory in the ordinance were allowed, the entire accessory use provision would be superfluous. Citation: Hannigan v. City of Concord, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, No. 97-666 (1999). see also: Becket v. Town of Hampton Falls, 374 A.2d 653 (1977). Variance -- Board grants variance for oversized pool that violates setbacks NEW JERSEY (7/19/99) -- Calabrese bought a house in North Caldwell. The property was nonconforming because the lot ranged in width from 60 to 78 feet, while the borough zoning ordinance required lots to be at least 100 feet wide. The property had an aboveground swimming pool. A paved driveway and garage occupied almost the entire left side yard and most of the rear yard. Calabrese wanted to replace the existing pool and deck with a 35-by~18 inground pool that he described as the smallest needed to accommodate a diw ing board. According to the pl.an,,the pool would be 35 feet from one sideline and 8 feet from the other. The distance from the pool to the rearline ranged from 19 to 15 feet. Calabrese applied for a variance because zoning regulations required inground pools to have a 20-foot setback on all sides. Calabrese also needed a variance from bulk requirements because the pool would occupy 14 percent of the rear yard, while the ordinance only allowed 10 percent. Calabrese claimed undue hardship based on the shape and substandard size of his lot. He said he couldn't reduce the side setback violation because of the driveway and garage and said moving the pool further from the rear lot line would create a hazard for those living in the house. Lang, whose property abutted ~.:alabrese's to the rear, opposed Calabrese's variance request at a zoning hearing. When zoning board members pointed out the inground pool would be less visible from Lang's property than the existing above-ground pool, Lang said he objected because the pool was too big. The board granted Calabrese's variance request, but said he had to relocate the pool so it would have a conforming rear setback and a nonconforming side setback of only 16 feet. He also had to plant a 6-foot hedgerow. According to the board, strict compliance with the borough's setback and bulk regulations would result in undue hardship because of the unique characteristics of Calabrese's property. The board noted the property was one