PL PACKET 08181987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.J G. V 4� i S� TYPES OF ZONING REGULATION § 9.62 discretion which may be less satisfactory to landowners seeking relief, but more conducive to protection of the neighborhoods in which construction on substandard lots is proposed.18 Where an ordinance excepts substandard lots which were g shown on a recorded plat prior to the adoption of a regulation, a lot not clearly shown on such a plat is not entitled to an exception." Even where the lot was rendered substandard by condemnation of a part, it need not be excepted if it was not P shown on a recorded plat.1' An ordinance which provides an a j Evidence, that the lot in question ance were denied. Hatfield v Kemp- i was too small to meet the residential ner, 33 NY2d 875, 352 NYS2d 443, zoning requirements, supported the 307 NE2d 560(1973). grant of a 30 foot variance to con- Where owner of a triangular piece ( struct a home. Hodge v Board of Ap- of industrial zoned property using his peals, 122 Ga App 235, 176 SE2d 539 land in a profitable manner sought a ii (1970). variance from a side-yard zoning re- A zoning ordinance which required quirement for the sole reason of eco- greater width and lot area with re- nomic consideration, the zoning board spect to lots with continuous frontage did not commit error in-law or abuse j in single ownership resulted in unnec- its discretion in denying the applica- • essary hardship to a builder who had tion. Altemose Constr. Co. v East Nor- ' been granted a variance, and should riton Zoning Hearing Board, 3 Pa have been based not on conditions Cmwlth 328, 281 A2d 781 (1971). existing in July, but those existing in s December following the conveyance of 16. Discretion to grant or deny a i! one of the contiguous lots. Board of special exception to permit use of a Adjustment v Ruble, 193 NW2d 497, substandard lot is not abused by de- (1972, Iowa). nial of a permit to build, although substantial preliminary work was Denial of an area variance to per- mit use of a substandard lot created done prior to enactment of the restric- ( iby applicant's sale of an adjoining lot tion. Caruthers v Board of Adjust- G y ment, 290 SW2d 340 (1956, Tex Civ was improper where there were nu- merous lots in the neighborhood App)' which were as small as the subject 17. Galpin v River Forest, 26 Ill 2d lot, and where denial of the variance 515, 187 NE2d 233 (1962); Wehrmeis- would result in great hardship to the ter v Carlman, 17 Ill App 2d 171, 149 applicant. Krueger v Zoning Board of NE2d 453 (1958). Ji Appeals, 48 App Div 2d 734, 368 See also Robinson v Lintz 101 Ariz NYS2d 63 (1975). 448, 420 P2d 923 (1966). ? Denial of an area variance was im- proper where the applicant showed 18. Builders Supply & Lumber Co. v ii that the parcel was only 2,500 short Hillside, 26 Ill App 2d 458, 168 NE2d f i of the required one-third acre mini- 801 (1960). a mum, that she owned no contiguous No exception of a substandard lot is parcel until her husbands death 25 warranted where the lot became sub- ! years after her original acquisition of standard because two-thirds of it was the subject property, and that she condemned by the state which paid would receive only $12,000 rather the owner an amount that included. than $16,000 for the land if the vari- both the value of the land taken and 243