Faranda v. Schoepflin
| Decision Date | 10 June 1964 |
| Citation | 21 A.D.2d 801,250 N.Y.S.2d 928 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Philip FARANDA, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Ray H. SCHOEPFLIN, Chairman, et al., constituting members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
James M. Hastie, New York City, for appellants.
Richard J. Lewis, Jr., Massapequa, for respondent.
Before UGHETTA, Acting P. J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, HILL and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding under article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act, to review the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay, made February 7, 1963 after hearings, denying the petitioner's application to build a dwelling on two contiguous lots, the Zoning Board appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 29, 1963 upon the opinion and decision of the court, which: (1) annulled its determination; and (2) directed the Building Inspector of the Town to issue a building permit.
Order reversed on the law, without costs, and application denied, without costs. No questions of fact were considered.
The Town Zoning Ordinance provides that if a substandard plot (such as the one here involved) is acquired under any circumstances by an adjoining owner, the said substandard plot merges in fee with the adjoining plot, and the substandard plot is no longer a buildable plot. Although, at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, the area of the lots comprising said plot was less than the area prescribed by the ordinance and thus qualified the lots for a non-conforming use as to area, nevertheless, when the lots were acquired by an adjoining owner, they merged with such owner's adjoining land and, under the provisions of the Ordinance, were required to be treated thereafter as a single unit.
The Town Board has the unquestioned power to enact zoning laws respecting the use of property (Town Law, § 263); and such power is subject only to the constitutional limitation that it may not be exerted arbitrarily and unreasonably (Vernon Park Realty v. City of Mount Vernon, 307 N.Y. 493, 499, 121 N.E.2d 517, 519).
In our opinion, the Zoning Ordinance, insofar as it is here invoked, constitutes a proper exercise of the Town's Zoning power; the Zoning Board properly construed the Ordinance; and the Board did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably in enforcing it and in denying petitioner's application for a building permit.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Khare v. Incorporated Village of Massapequa Park
...right to a permit for the substandard portion, Matter of Vollet v. Schoepflin, 28 A.D.2d 706, 280 N.Y.S.2d 950 Matter of Faranda v. Schoepflin, 21 A.D.2d 801, 250 N.Y.S.2d 928; Matter of Fina Homes, Inc. v. Young, 14 Misc.2d 576, 177 N.Y.S. 535, affd. 7 A.D.2d 864, 182 N.Y.S.2d 300, affd. 7......
-
Contino v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead
...of constitutional right in the requirement that land may not be so divided as to create substandard plots (Matter of Faranda v. Schoepflin, 21 A.D.2d 801, 250 N.Y.S.2d 928). A landowner's owner's attack upon the restrictions contained in zoning legislation, upon the ground that they are con......
-
Allen v. Adami
...specific merger clauses found in such cases as Matter of Vollet v. Schoepflin, 28 A.D.2d 706, 280 N.Y.S.2d 950; Matter of Faranda v. Schoepflin, 21 A.D.2d 801, 250 N.Y.S.2d 928, and Matter of Creamer v. Young, 16 Misc.2d 676, 184 N.Y.S.2d Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division sho......
-
Ewers v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Brookhaven
...they have since merged (see, e.g., Matter of Wiggin v. Kern, 161 A.D.2d 716, 555 N.Y.S.2d 858 [2d Dept., 1990]; Matter of Faranda v. Schoepflin, 21 A.D.2d 801, 250 N.Y.S.2d 928.) Accordingly, to be entitled to an area variance, the petitioner was required to demonstrate that strict complian......