Following a moratoria and protracted litigation over the proposed construction of 31 seasonal residences to be built by the owners of a local beach and yacht club in a Marine Recreational zoning district, the zoning board of appeals determined that the proposed use was not an accessory use pursuant to the Village Zoning Code which defines such uses as “customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building located on the same lot with such principal use.”  In reaching their determination, the zoning board noted that the residences would occupy more than 50% of the total building square footage on the subject site, and that similar accessory uses at other clubs did not have individual kitchens such as was proposed by the applicant in this case – leading the board to doubt whether the proposed use was accessory or principal.

                               

The Appellate Court commented that even the zoning board acknowledged that the local zoning code did “not seem to place a limitation as to the magnitude of square footage associated with an accessory use.”  In fact, the zoning code specifically allowed for seasonal residences for club members and guests as accessory uses, without any reference to floor area. The Court concluded that the zoning board, “in engrafting area requirements upon provisions defining a permissive accessory use, based upon the square footage of other building structures on the property, was irrational and unreasonable.”

 

In this case, had the Village been concerned about the size of accessory uses, the Court points out that when they adopted/amended their zoning code, they could have included such a limitation.  However, absent such language in the Code, and given the fact that the Village had enacted a recent amendment to this section of the Code (although the Court had earlier decided that the prior provision would apply in this case) and could have included a square footage maximum had they so desired, the Court upheld the Trial Court’s ruling on the merits that although the zoning code defined accessory use as something customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use, it “did not follow that the accessory use could not be larger in square footage than other structures on the site.”

 

Mamaroneck Beach & Yacht Club, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Village of Mamaroneck, 2008 WL 2609325 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 7/1/2008).

 

The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_06157.htm