The Respondent owns real property in the Village that crosses over two zoning districts – one portion of the parcel is located in a commercial zoning district, and this parcel houses the Respondent’s current facilities – - a membership club. A second portion is located in a residential district where membership facilities are not permitted. In 2007, the Respondent applied to the Village for variances and relief pursuant to a section of the zoning ordinance which provides that where “..a lot lies in two or more land use districts, each portion of the lot shall be governed by the regulations of the district in which is lies. Upon special authorization…after a public hearing, the provisions of the less restricted portion of the lot may be extended up to 30 feet into the more restricted portion. An extension of more than 30 feet shall require a variance or map amendment.” The Respondent’s request to extend the facilities 36 feet into the residential district was denied, but in 2008, when Respondent request to extend the facilities only 28 feet into the residential district the zoning board granted the request.
The appeals court determined that the Respondent was not entitled to relief under the zoning ordinance since the zoning ordinance defines “lot” as “[a]ny parcel of land which individually or as part of a subdivision of land has been recorded in the County Clerk’s office.” Here, while the parcel was considered one for tax purposes, it was actually comprised of two separate parcels, separately deeded and filed in the Clerk’s office. Since the zoning ordinance applies only to a single lot, the Court said that the zoning board could not grant the requested extension.
Shannon v Village of Rouses Point Zoning Board of Appeals, 2010 WL 1235829 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 4/1/2010).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2010/507685.pdf
