Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

November 10, 2011 J Volume 51 No. 21 Zoning Bulletin duced the size of a proposed structure, even when that structure met di- mensional code requirements. The Background/Facts: Greencove Associates, LLC ( "Greencove ") owned a 5.26 acre parcel of property (the "Property ") in the Town of North Hempstead, New York (the "Town "). The Property was im- proved by a commercial shopping center. When the shopping center had first been constructed in 1959, a restriction was imposed requiring the maintenance of a landscaped buffer (the "Buffer ") along a portion of the property. Following a 1999 expansion of the shopping center, the Buffer measured, on average, 22 feet in width. In 2010, Greencove sought to expand the shopping .center. It submit- ted to the Nassau County Planning Commission ( "NCPC ") an applica- tion for approval to construct a new 10,000- square -foot structure in the southwest corner of the property. As proposed, the structure would en- croach on the Buffer, reducing it to a width of four or five feet. The NCPC recommended approval of the site plan application with a modification reducing the size of the new structure to approximately 6,800 square feet. The NCPC said this would "enable the structure to better fit into the irregular- shaped site ... while maintaining the existing [B] uffer." Eventually the Town Board of the Town of North Hempstead (the "Board ") approved Greencove's site plan application, with the condition that the size of the proposed structure be reduced to 6,800 square feet. Greencove appealed. Greencove noted that the proposed 10,000- square -foot building was dimensionally code compliant. Green- cove argued that the condition requiring a reduction in the size of the building exceed the Board's powers. DECISION: Greencove's petition denied. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York, held that the challenged condition was within the Board's power to impose. The court pointed to Town Law 2 74 -a (2) (a ), which authorized the Board to review site plans based on certain land use elements, including "screening," "landscaping," and "dimension of buildings." The Town Code provided that in making its considerations as to whether or not to approve a site plan, the Board must consider, among other things, "[o]verall impact on the neighborhood, including compatibility of de- sign considerations and adequacy of screening from residential prop- erties." The court also noted that the Board could impose a condition\ upon property so long as there was a "reasonable relationship between the problem sought to be alleviated and the application concerning the property." Citing the Town Law and Town Code, the court found that the Board had authority to impose the contested condition. The court also found 6 © 2011 Thomson Reuters