Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1998

Home

, -.. Z.B. February 10, 1998 mPage 7 known and hotly debated for five years, so any development in the area was done with the understanding that Hoover might eventually get the permit. see also: Patel v. Planning Board, 609 A.2d ]3J9 (1992). Variance-- City denies variance to use armory.to house international college students Diana v. City of Amsterdam Zoning Board of Appeals, 664 N.Y.S.2d 634 (New York) 2997 Diana bought at a public auction the former National Guard Armory in the city of Amsterdam, N.Y. At the time, the property was zoned "R-2," which allowed it to be used as a one- or two-family residence. Diana used the armory as her home for almost a year. She then applied to the city for a use variance for a permit to convert the first floor of the armory building into dormitory-style rooms to house up to 25 international college students. Her proposal included using the gym for occasional community cul- tural, musical, and sporting events, and as a day-care facility. The city denied Diana's request, and she appealed to the zoning board of appeals. The board found all the uses Diana proposed were allc~wed except for the use of the property as a dormitory, but it affirmed the city's decision. It found she didn't meet the requirements for a variance. Diana appealed to court. She asked the court to order the board to issue the variance and permit she requested. Under state law, to be entitled to a variance the applicant had to prove the restrictions on the property caused unnecessary hardship. This required show- ing that the property couldn't provide a reasonable return as it was currently zoned, the hardship resulted from the property's unique characteristics, the proposed use wouldn't alter the neighborhood's nature, and the hardship wasn't self-imposed. Diana apparently claimed her hardship wasn't self-imposed because she thought the proposed use of the gym for cultural, musical, and sporting events was "grandfathered" because the gym had previously been used for sporting events. She also pointed out she couldn't have bought the property contin- gent upon getting a variance because she bought it from the state at a public auction. The court annulled the board's decision, findin~ Diana was entitled to a variance to convert the armory into a dormitory for college students. The board appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The board's decision was confirmed. It properly denied Diana's variance request because her hardship was self-created. Although Diana may have satisfied the first three requirements for a variance, her application was "foredoomed by the complete absence of evidence to support a finding that the hardship was not self-imposed." Hardship was considered self-imposed when the applicant for the variance acquired the property