Clintwood Apartments v. Frankel

106 A.D.2d 884, 483 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21796

This text of 106 A.D.2d 884 (Clintwood Apartments v. Frankel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clintwood Apartments v. Frankel, 106 A.D.2d 884, 483 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a grant of an area variance by the Board of Appeals of the Town of Brighton to Southland Corporation permitting the replacement of an existing commercial structure with a building to be erected 23 feet from the rear lot line rather than 60 feet, the rear yard setback required by the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Brighton. The site is located at the northeast corner of Elmwood Avenue and Clinton Avenue south and the lot configuration is trapezoidal. The irregularity of the lot dimensions is due to the angle between the avenues at their point of juncture. At the hearing Southland offered evidence to establish its claim that it sustained significant economic injury caused by the setback requirements of the ordinance, which, as applied, are unrelated to the public health, safety and welfare and that the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the surrounding community (see Matter of Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v Pisaturo, 75 AD2d 1003). In our view, the determination of the Board of Appeals that strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Brighton would result in practical difficulties in this case has a rational basis, is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444; [885]*885Matter of National Merritt v Weist, 41 NY2d 438, 443). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J. — art 78.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fuhst v. Foley
382 N.E.2d 756 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v. Pisaturo
75 A.D.2d 1003 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 A.D.2d 884, 483 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clintwood-apartments-v-frankel-nyappdiv-1984.