PL PACKET 08181987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• § 9.62 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING TYPES exception for lots of substandard area does not authorize an § 9.63. —Common o exception of lots with deficient frontage.1' The common except Relief for the owners of substandard lots sometimes has been the effective date of supported by the general provisions which preserve nonconform- which were in single ing uses. Thus, an owner was permitted to improve lots which he Under such a provisi had enlarged after adoption of a restrictive ordinance, but which only if his lot is isolate remained substandard, on the ground that the lots were platted, lot adjacent to it, he i and the plat approved, before the minimum lot area standards must combine the two were enacted.20 However, no such right accrued to an owner closely approximate, t whose map was filed but never officially approved, and where no ordinance. Where, for further action was taken, prior to enactment of the restrictive ous lots which each ha regulations.21 owning 80 feet of front Where construction had taken place on a substandard lot, the consistent with the z owner was held entitled to continue use of the dwellings, but not held reasonable as it to subdivide further.22 land.A The same resul the consequential loss or value of the real estate in 1957, and who did not containing 5,000 sqt-a substandard part which remained. actually use the property or spend width requirements. Acierno v Barr, 28 App Div 2d 541, money in physically changing it, did Schoepflin, 28 App D'v 2d 279 NYS2d 601 (1967). not possess a vested right to continue NYS2d 950(1967). 19. Publico v Building Inspector of as a nonconforming use upon enact- Quincy, 336 Mass 152, 142 NE2d 767 ment of new subdivision regulations 23. See generally Comm (1957). in 1963. Sherman-Colonial Realty standard Lots and the Property owner's suit to enjoin the Corp' v Goldsmith, 155 Conn 175, 230 Clause—"Checkerboardin y A2d 568(1967). Means of Circumvention, 16 enforcement against his property of L Rev p 612(1965). minimum frontage and area require- 22. Clemons v Los Angeles, 36 Cal Zoning ordinance which ments was dismissed since the evi- 2d 95, 222 P2d 439 (1950); Howland v dence reflected the uniform develop- Acting Superintendent of Bldgs. & prior uld be sold lastwo eorl city ment of minimum frontage and area Inspector of Bldgs. 328 Mass 155, 102 was constitutional and did restrictions. In addition, evidence in- NE2d 423(1951). landowner who had purcN dicated that plaintiff had engaged in 5,200 foot the purchase and sale of real estate The ordinance provided that "No adoption sq ua a re foot parcels parcel cl specializing in the purchase and sale improved zoning lot shall hereafter be of undersized lots and had admitted divided into two or more zoning lots minimum lot size as 7,500 sqi that he had received a bargain price • • •" Under this provision, a land- thus precluding split lot sale for the subject lot because of the zon- owner whose three 25-foot lots are owner because the two par(. ing restrictions involved. Szeliga v occupied by a single family dwelling adjoining and constituted ( Des Plaines, 4 Ill App 3d 257, 280 may not remove the dwelling and "lot" under the zoning ordina NE2d 767 (1972). construct single family homes on each v Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal 31 Cal Rptr 785, 491 P2d 369(19 of the substandard 25-foot lots. Gan- 20. State ex rel. La Voie v Building ley v Chicago, 18 Ill App 3d 248, 309 The fact that subject prop Com. of Trumbull, 135 Conn 415, 65 NE2d 653(1974). divided into 35 foot lots pri A2d 165(1949). annexation by city and prig Where substandard lot came under passage by the city of zoning 21. Corsino v Grover, 148 Conn 299, common ownership with adjoining went requiring minimum 170 A2d 267,95 ALR2d 751 (1961). landowner, it was improper to grant and area, did not give lai A landowner who filed ma show- an area variance upon the subsequent p Ps Po �q right to exceed the ordinano ing proposed subdivisions under the unlawful subdivision of the parcel in tions as the lots owned by d method acceptable for subdividing a manner which violated area and tiff were contiguous and c 244 •