PL PACKET 08181987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. a3 - a F2[ VARIANCES § 15.54 4; The problem of substandard lots, especially with regard to special provisions for relief, has been considered in an earlier chapter." This section is concerned with administrative relief for the owners of substandard lots under ordinances which make no special concessions to such owners, and with the miscellany f �� , problems which result from the application of setback y .zr , yard, and coverage restrictions to lots of various sizes and shapes. ,a Where the setback provisions of the zoning ordinance, as applied to the applicant's lot, prevent the erection of a dwelling ' of reasonable size, denial of a variance to permit some beneficial use of the land is arbitrary and capricious. Thus, where a 100- .... ti,.e r foot setback from the public way was required of an owner � k ,"? whose land was smaller than the setback required, all use of the ' land was denied and he was entitled to a variance.26 Where the " } application of setback regulations to the owner's corner lot ' limited the usable portion of the land to 11 feet, he suffered ' practical difficulty and was entitled to a variance which would permit construction of a building of reasonable size.' Setback regulations were said to impose practical difficulties where they w limited to 10 percent the usable portion of a triangular plot of ILI- ground.2 r u= A rear-yard requirement which prevents the construction of an addition to a warehouse in an industrial district, although the reduced yard will abut land owned by the warehouseman a' imposes a practical difficulty upon the owner.2' A side-yard requirement which prevents the use of a house constructed under a variance which was subsequently annulled was held to 9: result in a practical difficulty which warranted an area vari- �� requirements of the zoning ordinance 27. Richards v Zoning Board of Ap- T llF_ when literal application of the ordi- ro" � Hance deprived petitioner of all bene- peals, 285 App Div 287, 137 NYS2d 603 (1955); Mandalay Constr., Inc. v k ficial use of his land and unnecessary Zimmer, 22 Misc 2d 543, 194 NYS2d hardship was shown. Saravo Bros. a Constr. Co. v Zoning Board of Review 404 (1959) (literal enforcement of set- ;; 102 RI 442, 231 A2d 9 (1967). back would result in 9-foot structure). - 24. §9.49, supra. 28. Re Fein, 67 NYS2d 218 (1946, 25. Peterson v Vasak, 162 Neb 498, Sup), affd 272 App Div 819, 72 NYS2d 76 NW2d 420(1956). 264• ' 26. Kane v Zoning Board of Review, 29. Wuttke v Kramer, 140 NYS2d 196 A2d 421 (1964, RI). 214 (1955, Sup). 4 ' 289 ;f r; �e o ..r a _