Vollet v. Schoepflin
| Citation | 28 A.D.2d 706,280 N.Y.S.2d 950 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Jessie VOLLET, Respondent, v. Ray H. SCHOEPFLIN et al., constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay, Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 19 June 1967 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Before BRENNAN, Acting P.J., and RABIN, HOPKINS, BENJAMIN and NOLAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay, denying an application for a variance to permit and allow the erection of a dwelling on a plot of ground having less area and building-line width than the ordinance requires, the Zoning Board appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 13, 1966, which annulled the determination and directed it to grant the variance. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs. No questions of fact were considered.
The Town Zoning Ordinance provides that no building may be erected on a lot having an area of less than 10,000 square feet and a width of less than 80 feet at the building line, provided that a building may be built upon a smaller lot, but not more than 15% Smaller in area or such width, held in single separate ownership on the effective date of a certain amendment of the Ordinance, january 27, 1953. The Town Zoning Ordinance further provides that, if a substandard plot (such as the one here involved) is acquired under any circumstances by an adjoining owner, the plot merges in fee with the adjoining plot and is no longer a separately buildable plot.
In 1951 the subject plot was a legal and buildable plot under the Zoning Ordinance then in effect, having 8,146 square feet and a frontage width of 81.46 feet. By the adovementioned 1953 amendment of the Ordinance, the property was no longer a buildable plot. It came into common ownership with adjoining property in 1960. By further amendment of the Ordinance in 1962, it became merged with said adjoining property and thereafter the merged properties were required to be treated as a single unit. (Matter of Faranda v. Schoepflin, 21 A.D.2d 801, 250 N.Y.S.2d 928).
The 1962 amendment of the Ordinance also provided that it is unlawful for any person to subdivide any parcel of land to create a separate plot which would violate the area, width or street frontage requirements of the ordinance. When Mrs. Carr, the common owner of both the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parks v. Board of County Com'rs of Tillamook County
...348 Mass. 794, 205 N.E.2d 227 (1965); Corsino v. Grover, 148 Conn. 299, 170 A.2d 267, 95 A.L.R.2d 751 (1961); Vollet v. Schoepflin, 28 A.D.2d 706, 280 N.Y.S.2d 950 (1967). In most, if not all, of the cases cited by Anderson and Rathkopf, the single ownership rule was expressed one way or an......
-
Khare v. Incorporated Village of Massapequa Park
...the passage of the ordinance, plaintiffs clearly would have no 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......
-
Allen v. Adami
...69.) Indeed, were that the rule, there would be no need for the 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, 1......
-
McGlasson Realty, Inc. v. Town of Patterson Bd. of Appeals
...Matter of Khan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington, 87 N.Y.2d 344, 639 N.Y.S.2d 302, 662 N.E.2d 782; Matter of Vollet v. Schoepflin, 28 A.D.2d 706, 280 N.Y.S.2d 950). While the petitioner's application for a building permit was pending, the Town of Patterson Building Inspector mad......