Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

-' Z.B. February 1 O, 2006 -- Page 7. Variance-- Homeless shelter wants to legalize and expand Board allows existing use, strikes down expansion Citation: Homes for the Homeless [nc. v. Board of Standards and Appeal~ of the City of New York, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., ist Dept., No. 6622 (2005) NEW YORK (19_729/05) -- Homes for the Homeless Inc. operated a transitional housing facility for homeless families in Queens known as the Saratoga Inn. The facility was made up of two former hotels, which had been abandoned. The land the hotels were on was zoned for manufacturing, and made up of three parcels -- the two hotel lots, and lot #63, an abandoned shop Homeless wanted to expand into. After operating against the zoning laws for years, Homeless applied to the Board of Standards and Appeals for a variance legalizing the Saratoga Inn and another variance permitting the expansion of the existing facility into lot #63. The board gzanted the legalization of the Saratoga Inn's use. But, because of public outcry, the board ultimately denied the expansion. Homeless sued, and the court ordered the board to allow the expansion. The board appeaJed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the board for more proceeding. Allowing the expmnsion at this stage would be arbitrary and capricious. The board found that the entire property sought to be utilized by Homeless had "unique physical conditions" that created "practical difficulties or unnec- essary hardship" precluding the development in conformity with the current manufacturing zoning. However, in finding the property unique, and the present zoning impracti- cable, the board made no distinction between the property presently housing the Saratoga Inn, and the unoccupied parcel #63, part of which was to be used for the proposed expansion. Even so, the board split the land in its determina- tion to approve only the legalization component of the application. Thus, the board's determination left Homeless with a parcel of vacant property it was unable to utilize. Importantly, the board did not make any distinctions between the lots in determining the unique nature of the property that made its present designated use impracticable. Ultimately, the board provided no rational basis for its split decision, and further proceedings on the issue were needed. see also: Soho Alliance v. New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, 741 N.E. 2d 106 (2000). see also: Bower Associates v. Planning Board of the Town of Pleasant Valley, 289 A.D.2d 575 (2001). , @ 2008 Ou~nian Publishing Group. Any reprodumiort i~ prohibited. For more Jnforrna,on please carl (61~ 5424048. 145