|
O
<br /> VARIANCES § 18.54
<br /> which falls short of the minimum-area requirements,36 or which 1
<br /> cannot be successfully developed within the lot-coverage" or
<br /> maximum-height requirements,38 is entitled to a variance. 1
<br /> Administrative relief is not warranted where the owner of
<br /> contiguous substandard lots can solve his own problem by com-
<br /> bining them to meet the minimum requirements of the zoning
<br /> regulations. In such a case, his development plans may have to
<br /> {� be revised, and he may not be able to extract the maximum
<br /> profit from his tract, but he has not been denied reasonable use
<br /> of his land.39
<br /> (1963) (applicant's lot was 100 feet; 37. Weeks v Koehler, 134 NYS2d
<br /> the ordinance required 120 feet); 796 (1954, Sup).
<br /> Kryscnski v Shenkin, 53 NJ Super
<br /> 590, 148 A2d 58 (1959) (applicant's 38. Hartsdale Station Shopping
<br /> frontage was substandard); Chasanoff Center, Inc. v Liberman, 11 App Div
<br /> v Silberstein, 6 NY2d 807, 188 NYS2d 2d 1073, 206 NYS2d 699 (1960), revg
<br /> 194, 159 NE2d 684 (1959) (applicant's 25 Misc 2d 684, 216 NYS2d 255.
<br /> lot lacked one foot of the required
<br /> frontage); Fina Homes, Inc. v Thomp- 39. Rodee v Lee,'14 NJ Super 188,
<br /> son, 226 NYS2d 613 (1962, Sup) (ap- 81 A2d 517 (1951).
<br /> plicant's lot was 25 feet wide; the Where plaintiff owned a single "lot"
<br /> regulations required 40 feet); Land according to the provisions of the ap-
<br /> Purchasing Corp. of America v Grune- plicable city code, and was denied a
<br /> wald, 20 Misc 2d 175, 195 NYS2d 69 lot-split variance that would establish
<br /> (1959) (applicant's lot was 40 feet; the two separate adjoining building sites
<br /> regulations required 70 feet). of about 5,300 square feet apiece, it
<br /> A board of zoning appeals may was not an abuse of discretion by the
<br /> grant a variance from frontage re- city council since the comprehensive
<br /> quirements where area requirements zoning ordinance provided for a mini-
<br /> are satisfied and where two lots can mum single lot area of 7,500 square
<br /> be made to conform only by the crea- feet. Hill v Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal
<br /> tion of irregularly shaped lots. Willits 3d 279, 98 Cal Rptr 785, 491 P2d 369
<br /> v Schoepflin, 46 Misc 2d 292, 259 (1971).
<br /> NYS2d 294 (1964), affd 23 App Div 2d
<br /> 868, 259 NYS2d 297. Where the record indicated that
<br /> An owner of a lot with frontage of landowner acquired a tract consisting
<br /> 40 feet is entitled to a variance from of .303 acres and a second adjoining
<br /> the terms of an ordinance requiring tract of .585 acres and there was an
<br /> frontage of 70 feet, even though the indication that construction of a
<br /> dwelling on the first tract would ag-
<br /> owner, subsequent to the passage of
<br /> the ordinance, acquired an adjacent w an existing drainage problem
<br /> which
<br /> strip with frontage of 20 feet. Mos- Which would tend to be injurious to
<br /> the neighborhood, landowners request
<br /> chetti v Zoning Board of Review, 102 for a variance to permit such con-
<br /> RI 532, 231 A2d 783(1967).
<br /> struction on the undersized lot was
<br /> 36. Mandalay Constr., Inc. v Eccle- properly denied by the zoning board
<br /> ston, 9 App Div 2d 918, 195 NYS2d 84 of appeals. Jenkins v Zoning Board of
<br /> (1959); Poster Advertising Co. v Zon- Appeals, 162 Conn 621, 295 A2d 556
<br /> ing Board of Adjustment, 408 Pa 248, (1972).
<br /> 182 A2d 521 (1962). Where substandard lot came under
<br /> 291 � '
<br />
|