Matter of Friends of Lake Mahopac v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Carmel
Decision Date | 07 February 2005 |
Docket Number | 2003-04211. |
Parties | In the Matter of FRIENDS OF LAKE MAHOPAC et al., Respondents, v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF CARMEL, Respondent, and CHARLES MELCHNER et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly found that the petitioners Friends of Lake Mahopac and members William D. Spain, Jr., James Maxwell, and Roderick Carr, Jr., had standing to bring this proceeding (see Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d 406, 413-416 [1987]; Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. v Galvin, 36 NY2d 1, 7 [1974]; cf. Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 774-775 [1991]; Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 76 NY2d 428, 433 [1990]).
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Carmel (hereinafter the Zoning Board) granted use and area variances to the appellants, permitting commercial uses of certain property located in a residential zone, in conjunction with the operation of a commercial marina on an adjoining lot. However, no use variance may be granted in the absence of unnecessary hardship, which requires a showing, inter alia, that the alleged hardship was not self-created (see Town Law § 267-b [2] [b]). The area in which the subject lots are located has been zoned residential since 1942. Town of Carmel Code § 10-5 provides: "No public marina, dock or other place where boats are lawfully hired, rented or sold, or where docking space is lawfully rented or leased, shall expand dock structures or mooring facilities beyond the capacity therefor as the same lawfully existed on September 1, 1962." The appellants were charged with notice of these restrictions at the time of purchase (see Matter of McGlasson Realty v Town of Patterson Bd. of Appeals, 234 AD2d 462, 463 [1996]). Moreover, there is evidence in the record that the appellants were in fact aware prior to purchase that the lots were located in a residential zone, and that the operation of the adjoining marina and its expansion onto the subject lots was of questionable legality. An owner who knowingly acquires land for a use prohibited by zoning may not obtain a use variance on the ground of hardship (see Matter of Clark v Board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Town of Carmel v. Melchner
...On appeal to this Court, we affirmed the judgment ( see Matter of Friends of Lake Mahopac v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Carmel, 15 A.D.3d 401, 790 N.Y.S.2d 470). The record established that the Melchners “were in fact aware prior to purchase that the lots were located in a residential......
-
194 Main, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals for Town of North Hempstead
...Partnership v. Trotta, 23 A.D.3d at 390, 806 N.Y.S.2d 74; Matter of Friends of Lake Mahopac v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Carmel, 15 A.D.3d 401, 402-403, 790 N.Y.S.2d 470). Contrary to the petitioner's position, the fact that a use variance was granted to the prior owner for the use o......
-
In The Matter Of The Application Of Tulip Gardens Inc v. Zoning Bd. Of Appeals Of The Inc. Vill. Of Hempstead
...cert den., 340 U.S. 933 (1951); Miller Family Ltd. Partnership v. Trotta, supra, at p. 390; Friends of Lake Mahopac v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Carmel, 15 A.D.3d 401,402-403 (2nd Dept. 2005). "[A] [determination] of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its... prior prec......
-
Matter of Eveready Insurance Company v. Mack
... ... uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County ... ...