Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2004

Home

Page '2 -- March 10, 2004 Z,B. 94 Variance -- Owner wants to build garage on substandard lot Board denies variances because of neighborhood concerns attd earlier decisions Citation: Gon~alez v, Zoning Board of Appeals of Town 'of Putnam Valley, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 2nd Dept., No. 2003-01570 (2004) NEW YORK (01/12/04) -- Gonzalez applied for setback variances to build a garage on her property, which was a small, substandard lot that did. not have sufficient room for a conforming garage, There were several substandard lots adjacent to or across the street from her property. There were also other simi- lar nonconforming garages nearby. ~ Neighbor/ng landowners complained, arguing Gonzalez's proposed garage would adversely affect the neighborhood. The board denied the variance¢. It found Gonzalez's proposal would be detrimental to the neighborhood. It also ruled it could not grant the variances because it had alyeady denied two earlier requests. Gonzalez sued,.and the court ruled in her favor. The board appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Gonzalez was entitled to the requested variances. Although Gonzalez's difficulty was arguably self-created, there was no evidence the grant of the variances would have an undesirable effect on the neighborhood's character; adversely impact the physical or environmental conditions; or otherwise result in a detriment to the health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood or community. · Many of the nearby nonconform/ng garages were granted variances from the street setback requirement of the zoning ordinance. The generalized and unsubstantiated concerns of neighboring landowners that the character of the neighborhood would be detrimentally changed were unsupported by any em- pir/cal data or expert testimony and were insufficient to counter Gonzalez's request. There was. also no merit to the board's contention its prior denials of two separate variance applications for the subject parcel barred Gonzalez's appli- cation. 71~e prior applications, one of which was actually granted condition- ally, were either made by an applicant other than Gonzalez or involved factu- ally distinguishable proposals for constructing garages on the subject parcel.' see also: Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 304 A.D.2d 761. see also: Sunrise Highway v. Town of Oyster Bay, 287 A.D.2d 714. Appeal -- Zoning officer provides no evidence or witnesses La~zdowner ,tbrced to present case first Citation: Hczrmer v. The Zoning Hearing Board of Upper St. Clair Township, Commonwealth Court of £ennsylvania, 2Vo. 3083 C.D. 2002 (2004)