Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Lazer STROHLI, appellant, v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the VILLAGE OF MONTEBELLO, respondent-respondent; Lawrence Goldman, et al., intervenors-respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Montebello, dated January 26, 1998, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for a building permit, or, alternatively, for area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated February 19, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The denial by the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Montebello (hereinafter the Board) of the petitioner's application for a building permit was a proper exercise of its discretion and is supported by the record (see, Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135, 524 N.Y.S.2d 30, 518 N.E.2d 924). The petitioner was not entitled to the relief requested as a matter of right pursuant to the “single and separate” ownership exception contained in the Zoning Code of the Village of Montebello, because the petitioner's vacant, undersized tract of land was not a valid conforming lot at the time that the ordinance was passed (see, Matter of DeTroia v. Schweitzer, 87 N.Y.2d 338, 639 N.Y.S.2d 299, 662 N.E.2d 779).
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion that granting area variances for the construction of a single-family dwelling on the subject property would have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. The petitioner is presumed to have known the applicable zoning regulations at the time that he purchased the property (see, Matter of Weisman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Kensington, 260 A.D.2d 487, 688 N.Y.S.2d 215). Thus, the hardships that may exist were self-created, a factor which was properly considered by the Board in denying the petitioner's application.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 17, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)