Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/1997

Home

Z.B. July 25, 1997 - Page 5 order the city to either issue the variance or begin condemnation proceedings. The court ordered the city to either grant the variance or show why it had not done so. The court then affirmed the city's denial of the variance and granted the city judgment without a trial on Myron's taking claim. Myron appealed. DECISION: Reversed in part and returned to the city council. Though Myron knew about the property's limitations when he bought it, that knowledge did not prevent his claim of undue hardship. The standard for determining undue hardship - that the property owner couldn't know about the complications when buying the property - severely limited municipalities' discretion. If this standard were enforced, municipalities would be prohibited from granting variances to any owner who knowingly bought property requiring a variance. That limitation ran contrary to the Legislature's intent, which was to give municipalities substantial discretion in land-planning matters. The city council still could reject Myron's application, but it had to do so for reasons other than Myron's prior knowledge of the variance issue. Myron's prepurchase knowledge of the variance necessity, however, was still enough to refute his taking claim. When Myron bought the property, he knew he was taking somewhat of a gamble, and could not claim the city had taken property rights away from him. q~ Variance - Did restaurant's knowledge of septic problem prevent it from claiming undue hardship? Citizens Savings Bank v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of Lansing, 657 N.Y.S.2d 108 (New York) 1997 Citizens Savings Bank bought property in the village of Lansing, N.Y. Located in a medium-density residential zone, the property had been operated as a restaurant - a grandfathered nonconforming use - until septic-system problems forced the restaurant to close. When it bought the property, Citizens knew about the restaurant's grandfathered-use status and the septic problem. It was not, however, fully aware of the problem's magnitude. Apparently, Citizens pursued various options for remedying the septic problem, such as hooking up to the municipal sewer, but none of the options were feasible. After its unsuccessful attempts to market the property as a restaurant, Citizens contracted to sell the property to a computer-consulting firm for office space. To accomplish this, Citizens applied for a use variance. The village's board of zoning appeals denied Citizens' request. Citizens asked a court to annul the board's decision. The court found for Citizens, and the board appealed. The appeals court reversed the decision and sent the case back to the board* to determine whether Citizens' hardship resulted from the property's unique characteristics or was self created. After a hearing, the board determined the parcel was unique, but that Citizens created its own hardship. The board again denied the u~e variance.