In upholding the zoning board’s denial of an area variance, the appellate court noted that the Town engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors. Specifically, the court noted that the board considered the evidence before it that indicated that granting the proposed variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, and that it would set a negative precedent by reducing the average lot width in the area, hence impairing the effectiveness of the ordinance. Lastly, the court noted that the petitioner’s difficulty was self-created as she was on notice of the zoning ordinance that had been enacted two years before she purchased the property.
Qing Dong v Mammina, 2011 WL 1733930 (2 Dept.5/3/2011)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2011/D31137.pdf
Under this ruling, this lot, which, I understand, has been held under separate ownership since prior to the 2006 zoning law, cannot be economically developed. Doesn’t this outcome amount to an unconstitutional “taking”? If so, who has standing to make this claim?
By: Mike Schcwerin on January 18, 2012
at 12:25 pm