Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2006

Home

April 25, 2006--Page 3 Variance -- Board denies variance without a hearing Claims it ruled on substance of variance over 20years earlier Citation: Kreisberg v. Scheyer, Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, No. 10190-2005 (2006) NEW YORK (02/03/06) -- Kreisberg wanted to expand his one-car garage to a two-car garage. However, the proposed plan sought to reduce the required setback from 14 to 10 feet. In 1984, the prior owners of the property had also submitted an application to add a two-car garage. However, that application was denied because of neighborhood opposition. Kreisberg applied for a new variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (board) Of the Town of Islip. The board voted to deny the variance without a hearing, finding that it had ruled already on the substance of the request in 1984. Kreisberg sued, arguing that he was entitled to a new hearing. DECISION: Judgment in hvor of Kreisberg. The board had to hold a new hearing. The board could deny a second application with no hearing if the applicant made no allegation that warranted a new hearing. However, the applicant was entitled to a new hearing if he or she presented significant changes in the plans and new evidence of lack of nei*~aborhood opposition. The first request for a permit had been made in 1984 by someone other than Kreisberg, and it involved factually distinguishable proposals for constructing a garage. Importantly, the 1984 application was opposed by a neighbor to the south of the property. However, there was now no indication of neighborhood opposition. In fact, the neighbor who lived directly adjacent to the requested variance submitted a letter in suppoa of the application. Ultimately, because of the differences in the new application, the board had to hold a new hearing. see also: ELN Realty Corporation v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Greenburgh, 261 A.D.2d 619. see also: Kennedy v. Zoning Board of Appeals of ~llage of Hastings-On- Hudson, 145 A.D.2d 490. Variance-- Board denies variance request for large accessory building Admits variance would have little effect on the area Citation: Verna Properties LLC v. The Board of Adjustment of the City of Maryland Heights, Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern Dist., No. ED85748 (2006) MISSOURI (02121/06) -- Verna Properties (Verna) was a commercial snow re- moval contractor located in a Redevelopment'Manufacturing district, which @ 2006 Ouinian Pubtishin§ Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617~ 542A)048.