Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

z.g. November 15, 1996 -- Page 3 allowed in residential zones, the house was not a nonconforming use, so Hayes could not continue using it for meetings and events. DECISION: Affirmed. Hayes could live in the house and hold meetings there, but could not rent out rooms as a guest house. The house as the church had used it was a nonconforming use; it was not used as a church. A church, as defined in Webster's Dictionary, was "a build- ing set apart for public worship." Not only was Hayes' house a half-block away from the Sacred Heart Catholic Church the actual place of worship -- but it also did not fit the definition. Under the board's interpretation, any building owned by a church would qualify as a church under the ordinance, which would be absurd and illogical. The house was a nonconforming use, so Hayes could continue using it for meetings and events. She could not, however, use it as a guest house. Renting out rooms in a house was not accessory to the residential uses allowed in the district. That the ordinance did not expressly prohibit guest houses as accessory uses did not change that. The ordinance prohibited guest cottages as accessory uses, and the two terms were indistinguishable. The board's decision to reject Hayes' proposed guest-house use was not arbitrary and capricious. Even if, as Hayes argued, the house would be put to better use as a guest house, the use still was prohibited under the ordinance. The board acted within its authority in denying the permit. Special Exception -- Board rejects retail permit based on neighbors' general concerns Gordon dr Jack v. Peterson, 646 N.Y.S. 2d 824 (New York) 1996 Gordon & Jack wanted to operate a retail establishment in the town of Hempstead, N.Y. It asked the Town Board for a special exception permit. At the board's hearing, the Wantagh-Seaford Homeowners Association and other area residents voiced general complaints that Gordon & Jack's pro- posal would increase parking, traffic and noise problems. They didn't have any specific evidence about these concerns. Gordon & Jack had an expert opine that the use would be consistent with other retail uses. The board denied the permit. ~ Gordon & Jack asked a court to review the board's decision. The court dismissed its case. Gordon & Jack appealed. DECISION: Reversed and sent back to the board. The lower court improperly dismissed Gordon & Jack's lawsuit. The case was sent back to the board with instructions to issue the requested permit with any appropriate conditions or restrictions. Because Gordon & Jack met the conditions necessary to get a special exception permit, it was entitled to one. A special exception was not like a