Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2006

Home

(~- \. Z.B. July 10, 2006-Page 5 adding materials to these supporting members and thereby m~ng them stron- ger, straighter, and longer-lasting. The intent of the local zoning ordinance was that nonconforming uses would disappear eventually. Allowing the proposed boathouse work without a variance was inconsistent with public policy goals to clear the lakefront of structures. see also: Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N. W2d 697 (2000). ( Appeal- Proposed development raises concerns about stQrm water runoff Landowner claims property is exempt from provisions related to runoff Citation: Nilsson v. Department of E,!-vironmental Protection of the City of . New York, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Dept...,No. 2005-00790 (2006) ',- NEW YORK (04/25106) - Nilsson was the owner of a 3.73 acre parcel ofland located in the New York City Watershed. Nilsson applied for a permit to con- struct a residence on the parcel with a subsurface septic treatment system (SSTS). The SSTS was intended to contain 42 inches of f1ll. The Department of Environmental Protection rejected the application, because the New York City Watershed Regulations prohibited an SSTS that utilized 42 or more inches of fill. Nilsson applied for a variance, which also was rejected. In its denial, the department stated that development of the property would have adverse im- pacts on storm water drainage. It also said that Nilsson had failed to provide information about his other real estate holdings in.the area. Nilsson appealed the department's decision. DECISION: Reversed. The court's review of an administrative agency's decision was limite,d to whether the agency's actions were illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or if the agency had abused its discretion. The court found that the department ex- ceeded its authority when it considered storm water runoff in denying Nilsson's applications. Nilsson presented the court with uncontested evidence that the subject prop- erty was located more than 300 feet from a watercourse or wetland and was over 500 feet from the reservoir, which made it, under the department's regulations, exempt from provisions governing storm water runoff. Nilsson also asserted that he did not own any other parcels of real property abutting the subject parcel. The department argued that the property was paft of a subdivision devel- oped by Nilsson, and that, since Nilsson had failed to provide information about other property holdings in the area, he could not prove that a hardship existed - a requirement for the granting of a variance. Further, the department stated that it had the authority to regulate storm water runoff provisions. ' The court found that, although the SSTS was adequate, -Nilsson's applica- _____.__.__.R. ..,.__ _._._._..___.._....__.R___.. @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For I-'-,l)re informRtioll please call (617) 542-0048. 89