Pansa v. Damiano
| Decision Date | 10 July 1964 |
| Citation | 14 N.Y.2d 356,251 N.Y.S.2d 665 |
| Parties | , 200 N.E.2d 563 In the Matter of Alexander A. PANSA et al., Appellants, v. Armand DAMIANO et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Utica, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
James J. Hage, Utica, for appellants.
Richard A. Abend and George A. Betro, Utica, for respondents.
Petitioners Alexander and Ruth Pansa own a dwelling house and lot fronting on Rose Place in a residential (A-2, two-family) zone in the City of Utica. The nearest cross street is Genesee Street. On the corner of Rose Place and Genesee Street nearest to petitioners' house is the commercially zoned and commercially used property owned by one Sitrin, with its front line of Genesee Street, its side line on Rose Place, and its rear boundary adjacent to the side line of petitioners' Rose Place lot. This proceeding was brought to review a determination of the city's Zoning Board of Appeals which rejected petitioners' appeal from the issuance to Sitrin by the city building commissioner of a permit to build a three-story concrete block building on Sitrin's land back of his Genesee Street building. The new structure so authorized (and now long since completed) has its front or main entrance on Rose Place. Petitioners assert that the new building violates Utica's city zoning ordinance in these principal respects (basides others): first, that the new building or addition is a 'warehouse' and as such prohibited in a commercial zone (art. VII, § 2, subd. 8); second, that the rear wall of the new structure is but 5 feet distant from petitioners' lot line in violation of section 4 (subd. 3) of article VII of the zoning ordinance which requires that the rear yard of a commercially zoned lot abutting a dwelling district be not less than 20 feet deep. The zoning board dismissed petitioners' appeal as untimely, as will hereafter be explained herein, and went also to the merits of the controversy, rejecting all Pansa's objections and holding that the space between the Pansa house and the nearest wall of the concrete structure is not the 'rear yard' of the Genesee Street permises within the ordinance's meaning but is the 'side yard' of the Ross Street premises and so not subject to the 20-foot restriction. In other words, the board of appeals thought that Sitrin's new building not only had not been shown to be a 'warehouse' in the sense of the ordiance but also that Sitrin by turning his building to face Rose Place had made the space adjoining it a 'side yard' and thus successfully evaded the prohibition against rear yards abutting residential property being less than 20 feet deep. The result, surely not contemplated by the law: a 3-story high concrete wall, of a commercial building, 5 feet from petitioners' said property line.
Special Term (while declaring as to the merits that petitioner's objections were not well founded) dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals was not taken within the time limited by section 3 of article XIII of the zoning ordinance. Section 3 requires that such an appeal 'be taken within thirty (30) days of the date of the decision, by filing with the Superintendent of Buildings and with the Board a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof'. The Appellate Division unanimously and without leave affirmed Special Term's order and we granted petitioners leave to appeal.
The immediate question, therefore, is: was petitioners' appeal to the board of appeals taken within 30 days of the board's decision? The material evidence as to this is undisputed. On September 21, 1962 Sitrin applied to the building commissioner for a permit for a structure described on the plans as a 'warehouse'. The permit was issued on the same day. About September 24 petitioner Alexander Pansa saw that an old building at the rear of Sitrin's lot was being razed. On September 26 Pansa made inquiries and was told at the city ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missere v. Gross
...Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Wappinger, 32 A.D.2d 668, 300 N.Y.S.2d 605, 606 (1969) (citing Pansa v. Damiano, 14 N.Y.2d 356, 251 N.Y.S.2d 665, 200 N.E.2d 563, 564–65 (1964)); see also Iacone v. Bldg. Dep't of Oyster Bay Cove Vill., 32 A.D.3d 1026, 821 N.Y.S.2d 654, 656 (2006) (noting th......
-
State ex rel. Brookside Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Jefferson County Bd. of Adjustment
...935 (1975); Hardy v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of Coventry, 113 R.I. 375, 321 A.2d 289, 291 (1974); Pansa v. Damiano, 14 N.Y.2d 356, 251 N.Y.S.2d 665, 200 N.E.2d 563, 565 (1964). One securing a zoning change or permit has a clear interest in the finality of the administrative act so that......
-
State ex rel. Brookside Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Jefferson County Bd. of Adjustment
...(R.I.1974); Hardy v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of Coventry, 113 R.I. 375, 321 A.2d 289, 291 (1974); Pansa v. Damiano, 14 N.Y.2d 356, 251 N.Y.S.2d 665, 200 N.E.2d 563, 565 (1964).5 The terms "notice," "know" and "notification" are often used in the law. The decisional law, however, is not......
-
Woodley Park Comm. Ass'n v. Dist. of Columbia
...1977); Ostrowsky v. City of Newark, 102 N.J.Eq. (1 Backes) 169, 174-75, 139 A. 911, 913 (1928); Pansa v. Damiano, 14 N.Y.2d 356, 359-60, 251 N.Y.S.2d 665, 668, 200 N.E.2d 563, 565 (1964); Hartunian v. Matteson, 109 R.I. 509, 519-25, 288 A.2d 485, 490-93 (1972).19 Here, the BZA found that WP......