Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-07-14 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes �i The Hon. Board of Trustees 90 South Ridge Street Village of Rye Brook, N. Y. 10573 Honorable Members of the Board: This statement is being submitted by the undersigned who ask that it be included in the official minutes of the hearing scheduled to be held on July 18th, 1989, at 8:00 P.M. at the Village Offices, 90 So. Ridge Street, Rye Brook, N.Y. with reference to the Moriarty Subdivision of property located at No. 255 North Ridge Street. We wish to record our opposition to the subdivision plan of. Moriarty, which your Honorable Board will be asked to consider. A number of interested residents of Rye Brook attended a hearing before the Board of Appeals on Zoning, held on April 4th, 1989, at which time the application of Moriarty for a variance was being heard. As briefly as possible we wish to set forth the following facts: The Moriaritys presently live in a small dwelling at premises known as No. 255 No. Ridge Street, Rye Brook. The lot on which the dwel- ling is situated is presently a legally conforming lot for single family residences, and contains more than the number of square feet required for a single family residence. The present Lot is approxi- mately 132.5 feet in width, by an average depth of 138 feet, which is in conformity with many other lots in the immediate area. The Moriarty application for a variance sought to have the Bd. of Appeals on Zoning grant him permission to subdivide his legally con- forming Lot, into two illegal non-conforming Tots. This would accom- plish two results, both of which place the Village in a legally pre- carious position. -1- First of all, the major reason for the existence of Zoning Boards is to relieve property and/or property owners from undue burdens which may be placed upon them by a strict application of the zoning laws, such burdens coming about by reason of lot size, configuration, elevations, conformations and any number of other factors which might impede the highest and best use of property. In a proper case the Zoning Board is empowered to give relief and to remove such burden. For example: if a property owner owns a Lot which by the adoption of a zoning ordinance is now smaller than required size on which to erect a building, then any attempt at building would be illegal. The lot is therefor useless to the owner, unless he can be granted permission (a variance) to build on a lot smaller than the ordinance requires. The Zoning Board can now make legal, that which under the ordinances would be illegal without the intervention of the Board granting a variance. The Moriarty application completely reversed this process, since it asked the Board to make illegal and non-conforming (the two pro- posed subdivided lots) , that which was and is perfectly legal, (the lot and residence as it presently is) . This is certainly a subver- sion of the legal process and in our opinion a totally unjustified and legally unsupportable action on the part of the Zoning Board, which believe it or not to everyone's shock and amazement, granted the application. We do not believe that this action was within the Board's jurisdiction, i.e. to make illegal and non-conforming, pro- perty that was legal and conforming. -z- Secondly, what kind of precedent does this action set for all future applications of persons who would like to subdivide larger lots which are legal and conforming into smaller lots which would become illegal and non-conforming. How does this Village intend to stop the flood of applications which this action will engender? If it can be done for Moriarty, why not for every other applicant? There is much money to be made by selling vacant building lots in the Village of Rye Brook, and we can see no way to stop future applications once such a precedent has been set. We believe the action of the Zoning Board to be illegal, arbitrary and not in the best interests of the Village of Rye Brook or of other property owners in the Village. The application was granted not because of "undue hardship" or "practical difficulty" as the Statutes require and as are defined in decided cases, but upon the most specious of grounds totally unsupported by legal principles. The reasons we heard for Moriarty making the application for a variance, were that he and his family were outgrowing the small residence in which they lived, and that Moriarty didn't Have enough money to build a new and larger house, unless he could subdivide his legal lot into two illegal lots. Then he could either sell one lot or somehow develop one lot with a new house and the sell it, so that in either case he would then have enough money to build a new and larger house on the other reamining illegal lot. -3- Our answer to those poor excuses were: sell your present residence and buy a new residence which is larger and can accomodate your family; or why not simply enlarge the present building? Both of these solutions would not entail any action by the Zoning Board, not and would /depreciate our adjoining property values, nor adversely affect any legal precedents. However, these solutions would not reap the grand rewards by way of profits that the granting of a variance would, for with a variance, Moriarty now has two buildable lots in the Village of Rye Brook with the blessing of the Zoning Board and has been the recipient of a tremendous windfall profit thereby. Actions of Zoning Boards were not and are not designed for such purposes, and in our opinion would be totally unsupportable and reversed in a Court of Law. We are not lawyers but we have been given the following language from two N.Y. cases, one of them from the Court of Apopeals, which we wish to call to your attention. This proposition was succinctly stated by a New York Appellate Court in the following language: "The mere fact of financial hardship to the individual owner, or the fact that it might be to its financial interest to sell the property . . . .does not justify the granting of a variance upon the ground of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship" (Rochester Transit Corp. v. Crowley, 131 NYS 2d 493) Further, the New York Court of Appeals, reversing a decision of a board of zoning appeals which granted certain requested relief, said: "The financial situation or pecuniary hardship of a single owner affords no adequate ground for putting forth this extraordinary power affecting other property owners as well as the public. " (Young Women's Hebrew Assoc. v. Bd. of Standards & Appelas, 266 NY 270) -4- We have asked several lawyers for their opinions as to the action of the Zoning Board and all of them without exception maintained that such action by the Board would be immediately reversed by the Supreme Court. It is our understanding that the Zoning Board granted the Moriarty variance application, but made it contingent upon the approval by your Honorable body of the subdivision map on file and which is now the subject of this public hearing. For all of the reasons specified above, we ask your Honorable Board not to compound the patent error of the Zoning Board with all of its consequential derogatory impact upon our Village, the property rights of its residents, the general welfare which includes property values, and the dangerous precedent which will be set by approving , - this application. We ask that you not give condonation to acts of the Zoning Board, which we firmly believe to be illegal, beyond the jurisdiction of such Board, and totally unsupportable by legal authority. We ask that you most seriously consider the arguments presented by us and that after careful reflection and analysis of them you disapprove the proposed application for subdivision. We append to this statement, a copy of the remarks made in opposition to the application for variance at the public hearing of the Zoning Board held on April 4th, 1989. Dated: July 18th, 1989 Rye Brook, New York I7 �` �/• O-L6 a" a d� J)2. -5- C�- Ij e f w � -6- Good evening Honorable members of the Zoning Board. My name is Preston Brueng, I reside at No. 26 Rock Ridge Drive, and I speak in opp- osition to the application of Moriarty. I appear before you this evening as a concerned citizen of this 'community, a graduate in Environmental Engineering, and one who is sincerely interested in protecting the area in question and in the preservation of its environ- mental qualities from the ever increasing burden of Zoning law variances which ultimately and severely impact the public health, safety and welfare of this comm- unity as a whole. I am also very. interested. in the preservation of the open spaces of our village, and in the safeguarding of its property values. The concept of zoning was established to regulate land ase for the purpose of protecting all these community values. Ocasionally however, a zon- ing requirement is imposed that will place an undue burden upon a landowner and a variance will be granted to alleviate the XfftN.Khardship and allow a modest deviation from the law. I most strongly oppose the granting of the requested variance for the following reasons: First, the parcel is situated on a particularly dangerous section of N. Ridge Street. Any addition to future ingress and regress to the property would considerably increase the probability of traffic mishaps , particularly when turning left out of the property and heading South-East on N. Ridge Street. Second, an environmentally sensitive area of ground water recharge directly adjoins the parcel. in question. Any further development of the property might adversely affect the areas ability to purify and replenish the alreadv over-burdened aquifer. This is especially important in an area that has many spetic systems and a history of rain water runoff problems . Thirdly because open spaces will be reduced, and property values of adjoing res.iden.ces will be•,negatively impacted resulting in depreciation of values. My mother, Carolyn Bruenn, and our neighbors, Mr . and Mr's. Zelinski, bought homes where they did because they felt that the open spaces surrounding there would rernainas such under the protection of the zoning law. That they wou,ld not have to fear any encroachment on their properties by new construction since there apparently was no immediate adjoining land upon which such construction could be built. We believed that .air right of privacy wool d be protectedand that. our property values would be preserved. Immediately Ln file NorLh of the Z,elluski property and our property, is a large marshy, wooded area which probably qualify' s protected Wetlands under our environmental regulations, and upon which no new construction would be permitted. We were safe from further . encroachment since all the other adjoining properties were already improved with one family residences, and no others could be added. When modern community planning mandated the preservation of open spaces, this application requests thay you reject this concept and eradicate -- not preserve, the open `spaces in our village. We see no valid reason why the value of our properties should be arbitrarily depreciated in order to cater to ttie desires of the applicant for a great vM7LJX14X financial windfall. When lie bought the property Ire was certainly aware of the zoning regulations, and that this property con formed to the zoning laws of our community, and was tinder no disability or hardship. He comes to this .Board with only one real motive, and he asks you to help him reap a very large profit by granting him two saleable building lots whereas fie now legally has but one. If he offers the excuse that lie has outgrown his present home, then let hirn build a larger home -- but on the same lot. He doesn't. need two lots to build a larger home for his family, and he doesn't need your help in greatly apprecial.ine the value of his property, at. the expense of greatly depreciating the value of our properties. -2 - e As I stated before, Zoning Boards have the power, and perhaps the duty to remedy and alleviate injustices and harships created by zoning laws in certain unique situations. But zoning Boards are not empowered to relieve a property owner from self imposed hardships, whether presently existing or con- templated in future. We have a request for variance based upona self imposed alleged hardship, and motivated by profit. This proposition was succinctly stated by a New York Appellate Court in the following language: "The mere fact of financial hardship to the individual owner, or the fact that it might be to its financial interest to sell the property . . . . does not justify the granting of a variance upon the ground of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship" (Rochester Transit Corp. v. Crowley, 131 NYS 2d 493) Further, the New York Court of Appeals, reversing a decision of a board of zoning appeals which granted certain requested relief, said: "The financial situation or pecuniary hardship of a single owner affords no adequate ground for putting forth this extraordinary power affecting other property owners as well as the public. " (Young Women's Hebrew Assoc. v. Bd, of Standards & Appeals, 266 NY 270) I submit to you that the applicant herein has not shown to this board any facts proving that the present use of the property burdens him with a unique or undue hardship. The only hardship envisioned is that self imposed hardship which his future plans themselves impose. This, in and of itself can never justify the granting of a variance. I might add that no one has an absolute right to a variance. A landowner applying for such must meet the burden of proof in establishing unique hardship as a result of the existing zoning law and the exist- ing use to which the land is being out. This application does not meet that test. -3 - Courts will not overturn a Zoning Board's decision to deny an applic- ation for a variane•e. unless Elie decision is clearly arbitrary. This narrow scope of judicial review permits you, the Zoning Board of Appeals, a wide and power- ful latitude in approving or rejecting such applications. Unless this Zoning Board carefully requires all applicants to stringently meet the burden of proof required for the issuance of a variance, and unless this Zoning Board keeps foremost the goals of protecting the public health, safety, welfare and property values of our community , as _insured, by strict compliance with established zoning laws, then the wide latitudes of discretion granted to Zoning Boards for approvals or rejections of applications, will lead to an undermining of the land use goals established by and for this and other like communities throughout our Land. For all of the above set forth reasons, this Board should deny the instant application. Respectfully submitted Preston Bruenn 26 Rock Ridge Drive Rye Brook, N.Y.