Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/02/2003

Home

Z.B. November 25; 200-2 -- Page 7 to be arbitrary and capricious. Here, the board's reliance on the densitY re-. quirements did not provide a rational basis for denying the application. The seasonal expansion in use did not impact the residence-to-acreage ratio .as it akeady existed. The court also found it would be unreasonable to expect the owners'to pay for upgrades.pr/or to approval. Further, the board did not explain why the up- grades were necessary oi: desirable. : . Citation: Village Estates Condominium Association v. Planning Board of the Town of Lake George, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 3rd Dept., No. 91088 (2002). see also: Matter of 1066 Land Corp. v. Planning Board of Town-ofAusterlitz, 218 A.D.2d 630. see also: Matter of Hayes v.. Gibbs, 89 A.D.2d 656. ~ · Variance -- Owner wants to build vacation home Relief from setback, lot coverage, and height requirements required RHODE ISLAND (10/15/02) ~ zarrella owned an undeveloped" !00-foot by 100-foot lot and intended to construct a vaCation home. In order to build the structure of his choosing, he had to apply for a number-of dimensional vari, ances, including setback, lot coverage, and height. It was noted no building could be constructed on this lot without some relief. · The zoning board of review conducted a hearing :On Feb. 26, 2001, and Zarrella presented several witnesses supporting his position. Lenihan, an ap- praiser, teStified there was no other permitted use for the subject lot as appro- priate as a single family dwelling unit. Lenihan further testified the hardShip. caused by a denial' of the variance would, be more than a mere inconvenience and he was unaware of any reasonable alternatives that allowed the owner reasonable enjoyment of. the residential use of the property. An- architect also testified she designed a house appropriate for the size and' dimensions of the property and tried to incorPorate aspects of the surrounding buildings, into her plans. On April 6, 2001, the board voted tO deny zarrella's application for dimen, sional relief. In its decision, the board agreed that some relief would be quired for the. project; but found Zarrella provided no evidence the relief'he sought was. the least required to al/ow a. legally permitted use of'the lot. Fur- ther, the board determined Zarrella did not. prove there "was no reasonable alternative to enjoy a legally Permitted use of a single family dwelling." -' Zarrella appealed, contending the board' used the incorrect interpretation of the applicable standard when he was required to demonstrate no alternative t6 enjoy a legally permitted use. The board maintained Zarrella failed to meet the standards for granting dimensional reliefl Since the board's decision,, however, the requirements of the. statute were amended to include [ess stringent standards. 31