PL PACKET 08181987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_ . § 18.53 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING The problem of ment to permit construction of an additional room on his home. Special provisions His practical difficulty was the addition of a mother-in-law to his chapter. This secf family. A denial by the board of zoning appeals was reversed by chap the court, which held that the increase in the applicant's family the owners of subsl ;u was a practical difficulty authorizing the board to grant relief. special concessions Litigation did not terminate at this point. The board denied a problems which re; variance to permit the construction of a 20-foot room, because a coverage restrictioi 16-foot room could be constructed without any offense to existing Where the sett + regulations. The court agreed, holding that no practical difficulty applied to the app was shown where a room of reasonable size could be built within of reasonable size, the zoning restrictions.21 use of the land is § 18.54. —Variance to relieve difficulties due to shape or size foot setback of lot. whose land waas s sr r land was denied Where an applicant for a variance can demonstrate that application of se owing to the size or hi shape of his land he cannot make any ^ limited the usabl reasonable use of it unless the literal application of the zoning practical difficult' regulations is varied, he is entitled to a variance. Such an permit constructi applicant can satisfy the standard for an area variance in states which require only proof of practical difficulties,22 and he usually regulations were can satisfy those courts which require that unnecessary hard- limited to 10 per ship be proved.23 ground.2N A rear-yard re 21. Quaglio v La Freniere, 211 warrant the granting of an area vari- an addition to a j6 NYS2d 239 (1960, Sup). ance where (1) an 80-foot difference in ' The owner of a dwelling containing grade between front and rear render the reduced yar( a single bedroom, and situated on a site preparation more expensive, (2) imposes a pracl i substandard lot in a minimum 2-acre the topographical problem will add requirement district, is entitled to a variance to $225,000 to the cost of construction, re construct a second bedroom to accom- and (3) a literal application of the under a vari wh ance modate a 14-year-old child. Lippe v zoning regulations would deprive the result in a pra( Cisternino, 44 Misc 2d 510, 254 landowner of a reasonable return on j NYS2d 273(1964). his land. Wilcox v Zoning Board of A landowner sought an area vari- Appeals, 17 NY2d 249, 270 NYS2d requirements of the g 569, 217 NE2d 633(1966). when literal applic i ante to permit expansion of his house to accommodate his son's family. The Where a lot split by a zone bound- fiance deprived an second family was needed to maintain ary lies 75% in one zone where tom ficial use of his Ian sho i the dwelling due to the ill health of pliance is possible, but 25% in a dis- hardship was nin the owner. The court held that the trict with greater area requirements Constr. Co. v Zonin t 102 RI 442, 231 A24 owner had demonstrated practical dif- which cannot be met, the situation ficulty. Zebrowski v Herdman, 72 involves a practical difficulty which 24, §9.49, supra. Misc 2d 973, 339 NYS2d 989(1972). justifies the granting of an area vari i ante. Christian v Laufer, 24 App Div 25. Peterson v V l 22. See Crosby v Board of Appeals, 2d 624, 262 NYS2d 359 (1965). 76 NW2d 420(195( 1975 Adv Sheets 321, 323 NE2d 772 y` (1975, Mass App). 23. Board improperly denied pe 26. Kane v Zonis 196 A2d 421 (1964; Practical difficulties exist which titioner a variance from the lot area 288