Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/1997

Home

Page 8 - June 10, 1997 Z.B. lOL the bylaw and 2) if the original use (in this case, the 60-unit park) would not be made more detrimental. Here, the extension would not comply with the 100- acre area requirement, so the board should not have granted the permit without first granting a variance. Commercial incorrectly argued the neighbors' property values wouldn't decrease as a result of its extension. The extension would produce increased pedestrian traffic from both the extension residents and residents of the original park who wanted to use the beach. see also: Rockwood v. Snow Inn Corp., 566 N.E.2d 608 (1991). see also: Pierce v. Board of Appeals of Carver, 343 N.E.2d 412 (1976). Site Plan Approval - Town says owner missed deadline for multifamily development AHEPA 91 Inc. v. Town of Lancaster, 654N.Y:S.2d 884 (New York) 1997 In October 1990 the town of Lancaster, N.Y., rezoned a 38-acre residential parcel into three different zones: a residential zone, a multifamily-residential zone and a residential/commercial-office zone. As part of the regulation, the town also stated the rezoning would be void and the individual lots would revert back to a residential classification if development did not begin within one year of the site plan application's approval. Development on both the residential and the residential/commercial-office zone satisfied the town's year-long deadline stipulation. In 1996, the owner of the third lot asked the town to approve its site plan application for developing the multifamily-residential zone. The town said that because the parcel still remained undeveloped, the zoning classification automatically reverted to residential. The owner appealed the town's decision, asking the court to have the multifamily-residential classification reinstated. The court found for the owner, ordering the town to reinstate the classification and to approve the-owner's site plan and issue a building permit. The town appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, but modified. Lancaster's 1990 rezoning resolution was unclear about its deadlines. The town did not clarify whether it meant development was required to begin on each parcel within a year of a site plan's approval, or that development of any of the parcels within a year of approval was adequate. Because the resolution was unclear, it had to be interpreted in the owner's favor. But while the court was right to have the lot's zoning classification reinstated as multifamily residential, it could not order the town to approve the owner's site plan and issue it a building permit. The town's code did not allow for "approval by default," so the court's order in this respect had to be modified. see also: Nyack Hospital v. Village of Nyack Planning Board, 647 N.Y.S.2d 799. see also: Matter of Allen v. Adami 383 N.Y.S.2d 565.