Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2007

Home

October 15, 20071 Volume 1 I No. 20 '\ I Penny Creek was retaining the power to prevent conversion of an approved apartment complex into a condominium complex. Penny Creek argued that case law provided that the conversion of an apartment into a condominium amounted to a subdivision of property', but one of the cases that it cited had since been vacated and the court found Penny Creek's reliance on the other cases misplaced. The, court found that conversion of the existing building to condominiums divided the ownership interest in the property-as the units would most likely eventually be sold to various owners-but the property itself was hot subdivided or replatted, and the footprint of the property would not change. Because no subdivision had occurred, Fenwick Tarragon did not need consent to convert the apartments to condominiums. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. Variance-Property owner continues to reside in cottage without ever constructin'g main building promised in variance request Neighbor argues variance implies main building must be built Citation: Gjerlow v. Graap, 2007 WL 2782892 (N. Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007) NEW YORK (09/25/07)-In 1980, Gjerlow purchased 'a parcel of land in the town of Bedford that was previously used as a horse farm. The land did not have an existing residence, so Gjerlow applied to the town for a variance to build a "cottage" where she would live while a main residence was being built. The town defined a cottage as a "dwelling unit within an accessory building which is incidental and subordinate to a principal one-family residence ... where either unit is occupied by,the owner of the premises." The zoning board of appeals gt.anted the variance, which allowed Gjer- low to construct a "caretaker's cottage prior to construction of the main building." The variance did not set any period of time within which the main building had to be built; Gjerlow built the cottage and she and her husband lived there without ever constructing the main building. In 2003, LeBrun bought the land that abutted Gjerlow's land. LeBrun subsequently complained to the town about the cottage. LeBrun claimed that Gjerlow's continued residence in the cottage violated the variance, which presumed that a main building would eventually be constructed. The town's code enforcement officer inspected the property and deter- mined that Gjerlow was in violation of the variance, and told Gjerlow that she had 90 days to apply for a building permit for the construction of a main dwelling unit. Gjedow appealed the code enforcement officer's decision to the zoning board. After a hearing, the board found that the code officer had correct- ly interpreted the variance. However, the board decided that, given that Gjerlow had been allowed to live in the cottage for over 20 years, she should be permitted to continue to reside in the cottage without having 9 , I 95