Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/2006

Home

May25,2006--Page3 structure shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any resi- dential building lot other than one single-family dwelling and a private garage for not more than two cars." The deed under which Librandi acquired title (from his parents) did not refer- ence the restriction. When Librandi acquired the property, it contained a single- family dwelling. Shortly thereafter, Librandi constructed a detached two-car garage. In 2003, Librandi demolished the existing house, but left the two-car garage standing. He then began construction on a new single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage. Librandi applied for and received all of the necessary building and occupancy permits. After construction, the property contained a single-family residence with an attached two-car garage and a separate, free- standing two-car garage. On March 26, 2004, a neighboring property owner, Finchler, whose property was under the same restrictive covenant, filed suit seeking to halt the construc- tion of the new residence. He asked the court to enforce the provision of the restrictions limiting structures on the property to a single-family dwelling and a two-car garage. DECISION: Denied. To enforce the restrictions of the deed, the court noted that the intent of the deed fa-st had to be reviewed. A review of the restriction showed that the word "and" between "one single-family residence" and "a private garage for not more than two cars" created two separate restrictions. The court reasoned that if the clauses were meant to be one, the drafters of the deed would have made the clauses dependent on each other by using the word "with." As two separate restrictions, the first was for a single family dwelling and the second was for a two-car garage. The court then ruled that a single-family dwelling could include an attached two-car garage, which did not preclude a property owner from having a separate two-car garage under the restriction. In addition, the court found that the original developer that placed the restrictions on the property had released the restrictions in 1988. Accordingly, the request for enforcement of the restriction was denied. see also: Wood v. Amer, 736 A.2d 162 (1999). see also: Kelly v. Ivler, 450 A.2d 817 (1982). Home Business -- Zoning code allows 'home professional offices' Landowner wants to put pest-extermination business lin home Citation: Mack v. Board of Appeals, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, 3rd Department, No. 98567 (2006) NEW YORK (01/19/06)- Sweeney wanted to operate a pest-extermination business out of his home. Under the town's zoning ordinance, "home profes- sional offices" were permitted uses. © 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 83