Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2007

Home

Z.B. Page 7 Variance - Homeless shelter wants to legalize and expand Board allows existing use, strikes down expansion Citation: Homes for the Homeless Ine.v. Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 1st Dept., No. 6622 (2005) NEW YORK (12/29/05) - Homes for the Homeless Inc. operated a transitional housing facility for homeless families ih Queens known as the Saratoga Inn. The facility was made up of two formerhotels, which had been abandoned. The land that the hotels were on was zoned for manufacturing, and was made up of three parcels - the two hotel lots, and Lot #63, an abap.doned shop into which Homes wanted to expand." After operating against the zoning laws for years, Homes applied to the Board of Standards and Appeals for a variance legalizing the Saratoga Inn and another variance penilitting the expansion of the existing facility into, Lot #63. The board granted the legalization of the Saratoga Inn's use. But, because of public outcry, the board ultimately deni.ed the expansion. ,Homes sued, and the court ordered the board to allow the expansion. , The board appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the board for inore proceedings. Allowing the expansion at this stage would be arbitrary and capricious. The board found that the entire property sought to be utilized by Homes had "unique physical conditions" that CIeated "practical difficulties or unnec- essary hardship" precluding the development in conformity with the current manufacturing zoning.. However, in finding the property unique, and the ,present zoning impracti- cable, the bom:d made no distinction between the property presently 'housing the Saratoga Inn, and the unoccupied parcel #63, part of which was to be used for the proposed expansion. Even so, the board split the land in its determina- tion to approve only the legalization component of the application. Thus, the board's determination left Homes with a parcel of vacant property it was unable to utilize. Importantly, the board did not make any distinctions between the lots in determining the unique nature of the property that made its present designated use impracticable. Ultimately, the board provided no rational basis for its split decision, and further proceedings on the .issue were needed. see also: Soho Alliance v. New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, 741 N.E.2d 106 (2000). see also: Bower Asspciates v. Planning Board of the Town of Pleasant Valley, 289 A.D.2d 575 (2001). @ 2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan ™ is a Thomson West brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. 41