|
TYPES OF ZONING REGULATION § 9.62
<br /> 1
<br /> control.' Accordingly, they create many substandard lots which > '
<br /> cannot be used unless relief is provided through variance proce-
<br /> dures' or by exceptions.' Relief for substandard lots is considered
<br /> in the next section. '
<br /> §9.62. Substandard lots.
<br /> Before the subdivision of land was subjected to municipal
<br /> control, a great deal of municipal land had been divided into
<br /> small lots, many with less than 30 feet of frontage and less than
<br /> f 3,000 square feet of space. When greater frontage and area
<br /> requirements were superimposed upon this pattern, many own-
<br /> ers were left with substandard lots. Strict and literal enforce-
<br /> ment of the more stringent regulations would have made such
<br /> lots useless to their owners and to the community. In addition,
<br /> the regulations which destroyed the use value of such substan-
<br /> dard lots would have been held confiscatory.'
<br /> 6. See, for example, Korby v Red- destroyed, and that the benefit to the
<br /> ford Tp. 348 Mich 193, 82 NW2d 441 public would be minimal. Hyndiuk v
<br /> (1957). Chicago, 14 Ill App 3d 1057, 304
<br /> • 7.Terra Homes, Inc. v Michaelis, 30
<br /> NE2d 6 (1973).
<br /> Misc 2d 862, 219 NYS2d 345 (1961); Provisions in a zoning ordinance
<br /> State ex rel. Rice v Woodmere, 172 saving clause establishing minimum
<br /> Ohio St 359, 16 Ohio Ops 2d 214, 176 lot areas and minimum width and
<br /> NE2d 421 (1961). frontage of lots upon which dwellings
<br /> An owner of a lot with frontage of may be erected have generally been
<br /> 40 feet is entitled to a variance from upheld, but such provisions are in-
<br /> the terms of an ordinance requiring valid as to lots which at the time of
<br /> frontage of 70 feet, even though the enactment of such requirements were
<br /> owner, subsequent to the passage of substandard, i.e., having a smaller
<br /> the ordinance, acquired an adjacent size or having a lesser frontage than
<br /> strip with frontage of 20 feet. Mos- the required minimum, if such lots
<br /> chetti v Zoning Board of Review, 102 would thereby be rendered completely
<br /> RI 532, 231 A2d 783(1967). valueless. R. A. Vachon & Son, Inc. v
<br /> Concord, 112 NH 107, 289 A2d 646
<br /> 8. Flanagan v Zoning Board of Ap- (1972); citing 2 Anderson, American
<br /> peals, 2 Misc 2d 922, 149 NYS2d 666 Law of Zoning §8.49 (1968); Morris v
<br /> (1956), affd 1 App Div 2d 979, 151 Los Angeles, 116 Cal App 2d 856, 254
<br /> NYS2d 618. P2d 935 (1953); Robyns v Dearborn,
<br /> 341 Mich 495, 67 NW2d 718 (1954);
<br /> 8. A minimum lot requirement of K
<br /> 5,000 square feet was held invalid levan v Volz, 67 Misc 2d 196, 323
<br /> when applied to a lot of 3,120 square NYS2d 866 (1971); Samuels v Harri-
<br /> feet upon which the owner wanted to son, 195 NYS2d 882(1959, Sup).
<br /> construct a single family residence. An ordinance which renders a lot
<br /> Evidence showed that seven homes on useless takes property without due
<br /> the same block were nonconforming process of law. Peters & Whalen, Inc.
<br /> with regard to the area requirement, v Schnetzer, 194 NYS2d 333 (1959,
<br /> the value of the lot would be totally Sup).
<br /> 241
<br /> Y
<br /> 91.'
<br /> 5
<br />
|