Sherman v. Gustafson
| Decision Date | 26 October 1967 |
| Citation | 28 A.D.2d 1082,285 N.Y.S.2d 255 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Roger SHERMAN and Marjorie Mather, Respondents, v. Robert GUSTAFSON et al., constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Townof Irondequoit, New York, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Frey, Dobson, Fiandach & Eves, George F. Frey, Jr., Rochester, for appellants.
Lamb, Webster, Walz, Telesca & Donovan, Herman J. Walz, Rochester, for respondents.
Before WILLIAMS, P.J., and BASTOW, HENRY, and DELVECCHIO, JJ.
After petitioners, under an illegally issued building permit, had constructed a supermarket and retail stores building on their property which failed to comply with the parking area requirements of the zoning ordinance, the Zoning Board of Appeals revoked the permit and ordered petitioners to remove the retail stores part of the structure. Petitioners then obtained additional land for parking and applied for an area variance to permit them to use their entire building, although there was still insufficient land to comply with the ordinance. The Zoning Board in denying the application found that there was a significant shortage of parking areas and that any hardship suffered by petitioners was self created. Special Term annulled the determination and ordered the Zoning Board to grant the variance applied for. In our opinion the Zoning Board was justified in denying the variance upon the ground that the practical difficulty was self created (Matter of Baumhofer v. Ullrich, 20 A.D.2d 751, 247 N.Y.S.2d 251; Matter of Midgett v. Schermerhorn, 24 A.D.2d 572, 262 N.Y.S.2d 269).
Judgment unanimously reversed and petition dismissed without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overhill Bldg. Co. v. Delany
...this rule of self-imposed hardship when considering zoning ordinances which require off-street parking. In Matter of Sherman v. Gustafson, 28 A.D.2d 1082, 285 N.Y.S.2d 255, affd. 22 N.Y.2d 793, 292 N.Y.S.2d 896, 239 N.E.2d 641, the Appellate Division reversed an order of the Supreme Court n......
-
Banos v. Colborn
...with the zoning requirements. The Board properly decided that Banos was estopped from claiming hardship (Matter of Sherman v. Gustafson, 28 A.D.2d 1082, 285 N.Y.S.2d 255, affd. 22 N.Y.2d 793, 292 N.Y.S.2d 896, 239 N.E.2d 641; Matter of Fina Homes v. Young, 14 Misc.2d 576, 177 N.Y.S.2d 535, ......
-
Tier Properties Co. v. Kitchin
...36 A.D.2d 571, 317 N.Y.S.2d 803, relied on by appellant, is not factually apposite to the present case (compare, Matter of Sherman v. Gustafson, 28 A.D.2d 1082, 285 N.Y.S.2d 255, affd. 22 N.Y.2d 793, 292 N.Y.S.2d 896, 239 N.E.2d Judgment affirmed, with costs. ...
-
Sherman v. Gustafson
...Respondents. Court of Appeals of New York. June 14, 1968. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 28 A.D.2d 1082, 285 N.Y.S.2d 255. Petitioners brought a proceeding under CPLR Article 78 against the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Irondequoit ......