People ex rel. Hudson-Harlem Valley Title & Mortg. Co. v. Walker

• Decision Date: 16 April 1940
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. HUDSON-HARLEM VALLEY TITLE & MORTGAGE CO. v. WALKER et al., Zoning Board of Appeals.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

282 N.Y. 400
26 N.E.2d 952

PEOPLE ex rel. HUDSON-HARLEM VALLEY TITLE & MORTGAGE CO.
v.
WALKER et al., Zoning Board of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 16, 1940.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Certiorari proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of the Hudson-Harlem Valley Title & Mortgage Company, against Ralph T. Walker and others, constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of New Castle, to review a determination denying a permit. From an order of the Appellate Division, Second Department, 256 App.Div. 1078, 11 N.Y.S.2d 159, reversing on the law an order of an official referee and confirming the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

[26 N.E.2d 953]

John J. Ryan, of White Plains, for appellant.

Ralph Geilich, of Chappaqua, for respondents.

RIPPEY, Judge.

The Hudson-Harlem Valley Title and Mortgage Company is the owner of certain premises situate on the southwesterly corner of King street and Greeley avenue in Chappaqua, town of New Castle, Westchester county, with a frontage of 65 feet on Greeley avenue and 31.35 feet on King street. Under the zoning ordinance of the town of New Castle the property is located in the business ‘B’ district. The ordinance requires, for any building, a setback of six feet on King street and ten feet on Greeley avenue.

Application was made to the town building inspector for permission to erect a building fronting on King street twenty-five feet in width according to plans and specifications attached to the application. A building of that width would permit of a setback of only six feet from Greeley avenue. The permit was refused. Thereupon, on September 19, 1937, the owner appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the town for a four-foot variance of the ordinance on the ground of unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty. It was alleged that, if the ordinance was enforced according to its terms, the owner would be deprived of the use of one-third of its property in any event, but, in fact and under the conditions obtaining, would be deprived of the entire use of its property since it was unable to lease a building twenty-one feet in width. After hearings, at which the petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to present all of its evidence, and oral testimony had been received as well as documentary evidence and full consideration given by the Board, a resolution was unanimously passed on December 6, 1937...