Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2003

Home

Z.B. April 25, 2003 -- Page 3 permitted purposes tics of the property, neighborhood. located in an R-1 residential district. About nine months after the owners pur- chased the property, they applied for and were granted a use variance allowing them to convert the three-family to a two-family dwelling and to convert the second floor apartment to a bed and breakfast (B&B). It was noted B&Bs were not permitted uses within an R-i district. A number of adjacent property owners objected to the proposal and sub- mitred a jointly signed letter in opposition. Nonetheless, the zoning board 6f appeals (ZBA) granted the use variance. The petitioners appealed the ZBA's decision to court, claiming the owners failed to demonstrate unnecessary hardship. The court affu-med the decision of the ZBA, and the petitioners appealed, again contending the owners failed to prove entitlement to a Use variance. DECISION: Reversed. The owners did not qualify for a use variance. To qualify for a use variance premised on unnecessary hardship, the appli- cant had to show i) the property could not yield a reasonable return if used for as zoned, 2) the hardship resulted from unique characteris- and 3) the proposed use would not alter the character of the In this instance, the owners simply relied on their personal need for more income that would be satisfied with the income derived from the B&B. This income would offset the increased costs of energy and renovations. The court noted a use variance could hot be granted "merely to ease the personal difficul- ties of the current land owner." The owners did not submit "dollars and cents" pr6of of the expected return of the property under the current zoning permitted uses. Finally, the owners did not successfully demonstrate that their claimed hard- ship was the result of "unique conditions peculiar to" and inherent in the prop- erty as compared to other properties in the district. Citation: Eck v. City of Kingston Zoning Board of Appeals, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 3rd Dept,, No. 92250 (2003). see also: Matter of First National Bank of Downsville v. City of Albany Board of Zoning Appeals, 628 N. ES. 2d 199. Signs -- Board approves billboard Zoning inspectOr who had denied perrnit appeals OHIO (2/28/03) -- Genesis Outdoor Inc. intended to erect a billboard si~o-n on property owned by the Goodwins."Genesis filed an application to construct a 14-by-48~foot sign, and the Parkman Township zoning inspector denied the application. The zoning inspector had learned'that the subject property was in an area zoned commercial and the township zoning resolutions prohibited "bill~ boards or t)ff~pr~mi~es advertising." Genesis then filed for a use variance with the board of zoning appeals and 433