Petitioner, Claude Simon (“Petitioner”), owns approximately 2.25 acres of property in the Village of Upper Nyack (the “Village”), which he sought to subdivide into two separate lots. The first lot would contain the existing dwelling and other existing improvements. The vacant second lot would be improved with a single-family dwelling. However, the Village advised Petitioner that he would need to
Continue Reading Second Department Affirms Article 78 Reversal of Village Zoning Board Determination
Fair Play in Granting Area Variances on the Tennis Court and in the Judicial Court
The orientation of a tennis court in a north/south direction is a benefit to competitive players interested in fair tennis play. Even the Appellate Division, Second Department, agrees.
To avoid the impact of sun glare, a Town of Southampton property owner sought several variances to construct a tennis court in a north/south direction. One of the variances requested a 17-foot
Continue Reading Fair Play in Granting Area Variances on the Tennis Court and in the Judicial Court
Special Use Permits Versus Area Variances: How The Difference Adversely Impacted A Property Owner In A Condemnation Proceeding
Today’s blog post concerns a property owner receiving substantially less than it wanted when its property was taken in an eminent domain proceeding because the “highest and best use” it claimed was applicable to the site required an area variance and a zoning change, rather than a special use permit. The awarded amount was about $1 million less than the
Continue Reading Special Use Permits Versus Area Variances: How The Difference Adversely Impacted A Property Owner In A Condemnation Proceeding