Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

Z.B. May 10, 2004- Page 5 buildings would be divided into separately owned dwelling units for people who no longer wanted to live in and maintain a traditional single-family home. Southwick chose a trapezoidal piece of property bordered by three streets. Consequently, for the site to be developed as envisioned, Southwick required several area and setback variances. The city's board of zoning appeals held a hearing on the requested vari- ances. It ultimately granted them with some additional conditions. Neighboring property owners sued, arguing the board acted arbitrarily in granting the variances. The court ruled in favor of the board. The neighboring property owners appealed, arguing there were no practi- cal difficulties serious enough to justify the variances. DECISION: Affirmed. The board's decision to award the variances was supported by the evidence. The trapezoidal shape of the property, along with the other factors affect- ing it, supported the board's finding it faced practical difficulties entitling Southwick to the requested variances. The only expert planner to appear at the hearing testified the property's shape and location imposed practical difficulties and particular hardship. The property was highly visible and surrounded by three roads. Because it was located on a corner, it was narrower at one end than the other. The property was in a transition area between traditional higher density multifamily housing and single-family housing. Accordingly, the project was designed to blend into the neighborhood by matching characteristics of the neighbors on both sides, thus creating a smooth transition from apartment build- ings to family homes. Finally, the variances were not substantial. They were necessary to pre- serve the neighborhood's essential character and did not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. see also:Henley v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 735 N.E. 2d 433 (2000). see also: Smith v. Granville Township Board of Trustees, 693 N.E. 2d 219 (I998). Plan Approval -- Apartment complex would be much larger than anything in the area Local board refuses approval Citation: Elide Building Corporation v. Allocc'o, S,~preme Co,~rr of New York, App. Div., 2nd Dept., No. 2002-10597 (2004) NEW YORK (02/09/04) --Elide Building Corporation wanted to.develop a new apartment complex in the town of Eastchester. Elide requested plan approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the town of Eastchester. However, the board denied approval. It found Elide's proposal would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood because it 2004 Quinlan Publishing Group. ,'Any reproduction is ~rohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 83