Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

Page 8- September 15, 1996 Z.B. The ordinance gave the board the power to let Branch Development re- 'move the trees, and the evidence supported its decision. - Also, contrary to the lower court's finding, the board did not say it could approve removal of up to 75 percent of endangered and valued trees. It said it could do so for protected trees, which was true under the iordinance. L Sea Island Scenic Parkway Coalition v. Beaufort County Board of ;Adjustments and Appeals, 449 S.E. 2d 254 (1994). Bishop v. Hightower., 356 S.E. 2d 420 (1987). ~Variance -- Board's grant of area variance doesn't cover much ground i Filangeri v. Pulichene, 645 N.Y.S. 2d ~51 (New York) ~996 The Holvecks wanted to put up a single-family modular home on two i adjoining lots in the town of Gardiner, N.Y. They got a building permit. How- ever, the. two lots together weren't big enough to meet minimum-lot-width ~and street-frontage requirements (both had a 200-foot minimum), so the i Holvecks received a stop-work order. : The Holvecks asked the town's Zoning Board of Appeals for an area vari- ance. At the hearing, a neighbor named Filangeri objected. Among Filangeri's i concerns: the Holvecks first should have applied to the town's Planning Board; ;the Holvecks' survey of the property was not complete; by where they placed the building on the property, the Holvecks created any hardships they may have claimed; and the Holvecks' title to the property wasn't clear. The. zoning board granted the variance, allowing the lot width to be 9.2 ~ feet less than the minimum, and the street frontage to be 36 feet less than the ·i~minImum. ~ Filangeri asked a court to review the decision. The zoning board asked for !judgment without a trial. The court granted the request and dismissed Filangeri's case. : Filangeri appealed. : DECISION: Reversed and sent back to the board. Because the zoning board did not support its decision with sufficient find- iings, the courts couldn't determine whether it was proper. The appeals court ~ had to send the case back for the zoning board to reconsider and make appro- ~ priate factual findings. Fr0rfi the record of the proceedings, the zoning board did not show it considered the proper factors for an area variance (which included weighing the benefit to the Holvecks against any harm to public health, safety and well,ire). It also appeared the zoning board didn't consider Filangeri's concerns about the Holvecks' title, their failure to apply to the Planning Board, and their combination of the two properties. Matter of Hanson v. Valenty, 603 3~.Y.S. 2d 98. Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 633 N.Y..S. 2d 259.