Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/1997

Home

Page 8 - July 25, 1997 Z.B. " ," without taking any testimony. The Zagrillis appealed again. They reasserted, among other claims, that the ordinance violated the equal protection clauses, discriminating between private garage owners and owners with carports or private parking lots. DECISION: Affirmed. The board was correct to prevent the Zagrillis from doing repair work in their garage. If the Zagrillis were engaged in repairing a substantial number of vehicles, as the board found, that activity could produce excessive noise, fumes, and dirt that could easily disrupt the neighborhood's residential character. There- fore, the borough had a legitimate government interest in restricting such activity, so the board did not determine the case in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner. The borough also didn't discriminate among owners of garages, carports, or parking lots. No auto-repair work was allowed in that particular district, and the zoning official said he would have challenged any owner's auto-repair ac- tivities in that district. Special Use - Should board have required more changes before granting special-use permit? Briarcliff Manor Inc. v. Village of Brim'cliff Manor Board of Trustees, 657 N.Y.S.2d 95 (New York) 1997 Tara Circle, a nonprofit organization promoting Irish culture and education, wanted to operate an Irish cultural center on its Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., property. The property, formerly part of a college campus, was located in a residential district. With the exception of constructing a large locker room, Tara planned to use buildings already located on the property. It applied for a special-use permit. After preparing an environmental-impact statement, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Briarcliff Manor denied Tara's application. In making its findings, the board concluded Tara had not minimized all areas of potential environmental impact. Specifically, the board found Tara's athletic schedule was "too ambitious" and would generate "unacceptable noise and traffic impacts in the Village." In response to the board's concerns, Tara amended its permit application, agreeing to scale back its athletic schedule. In addition, Tara eliminated its plans for the locker room and a dining facility, reduced the seating and hours of a proposed banqiJet facility, and reduced the number of available parking spaces. Based on these changes, the board granted the special-use permit. Several residents sued the village, asking a court to stop the permit from being issued. The board itself - whose membership changed after an election - joined the residents in challenging the permit, arguing the old board had erroneously granted the permit. The court dismissed the residents' petition, and the residents appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board's decision was not arbitrary or improper. Tara substantially scaled bac~ its proposal, so the board's decision to grant the permit wasn't irrational. ,. ., '. '. _.,.,.,~. '--".t Jol