PL PACKET 08181987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• § 9.62 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING Ty To avoid this result, most ordinances provide some relief for discretion which the owner of a substandard lot. The zoning ordinance of the City relief, but more co of New Orleans, Louisiana, provides that where a lot has less which construction area than the minimum requirements for the district within Where an ordii which the lot is located and has continuously been a lot of shown on a record record, in separate ownership from adjacent property, prior to lot not clearly s and since the passage of the Ordinance, the lot may be used only exception." Even for single family dwelling purposes or for any non-dwelling purpose permitted in the district within which the lot is lo- condemnation of sated.'° Under such an ordinance, the owner of a substandard lot shown on a reco which was of record prior to the adoption of the restrictive Evidence, that the ordinance need not seek administrative relief." He is entitled as was too small to meet of right to develop his lot within the limits of the exception. His zoning requirements, right to such relief may be lost where he treats a number of lots grant of a 30 foot v as a single unit for the purpose of constructing a condominium.12 struct a home. Hodge peals, 122 Ga App 23 If the determination of his qualification for an exception is (1970)• committed to an administrative board, as is true under some A zoning ordinance ordinances,13 the task of the board is simply to determine greater width and to spect to lots with con i whether the lot was one of record on the effective date of the in single ownership r ordinance. The board is without discretion to deny a permit if essary hardship to a 4 the specific requirements of the ordinance are met." been e been b no Some ordinances afford relief to the owners of substandard existing in July, but lots by authorizing special permits, or by committing the adjust- December following t one of the contiguou ment of rights to an administrative board with power to grant Adjustment v Ruble, variances.15 These procedures involve a degree of administrative (1972, Iowa). Denial of an art a 10. New Orleans, Comprehensive field, 117 NJ Super 130, 283 A2d 768 mit use of a substan Zoning Ordinance Art 10§7(1970). (1971). by applicant's sale of 12. Parks v Board of Count 11.The owner of a lot which cannot Y was improper where Comrs., 11 Or A 177, 501 P2d 85, merous lots in th meet frontage and area standards is pp which were as small entitled to use it without seeking a 68 ALR3d 138 (1972); citing 2 Ander- lot, and where denial variance. Mandalay Constr., Inc. v son, American Law of Zoning §8.49 (1968) would result in great . Eccleston, 9 App Div 2d 918, 195 applicant. Krueger v NYS2d 84 (1959). 13. Charlotte, N C, Zoning Ordi- Appeals, 48 App b When a municipal legislative body nance §23.98(1973). NYS2d 63(1975). divides a town into districts and pro- Denial of an area 14. Vassalotti v Board of Appeals, vides the minimum land dimensions 348 Mass 658, 204 NE2d 924 (1965); proper where the for particular uses in such districts, it that the parcel was Macchia v Board of Appeals, 7 Mist does so with at least constructive no- 2d 763, 164 NYS2d 463 (1957); Wood v of the required on tice of the existence therein of every North Salt Lake, 15 Utah 2d 245, 390 mum, that she own substandard parcel of land held in P2d 858(1964). parcel until her hut single, separate ownership and is un- years after her origi der a duty to make adequate provi- 15. See Mandalay Constr., Inc. v the subject propert sions for such parcels so as not to Eccleston, 9 App Div 2d 918, 195 would receive only e render them useless. Grate v Spring- NYS2d 84 (1959). than $16,000 for the 242