LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

KHAN v ZONING BD. OF APPEALS Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: KHAN, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>087_0344, Zoning, Respondent, Ordinance, Matter, Regulations, Variance, Parcel, Separate Ownership, Village, Exemption, Appeals, Protect, Flood, Zoning Board, Ad2d, Ny2d, Zba, Owner, Land, Appellate, Building Permit, Resource Protection, Irvington, Unimproved Parcel, Flood Plain, Residence, Purposes, Supra, Provisions , ContentID: 120251106

Case Documents
1 1996-01-16 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 125015
6 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 6 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RESPONDENT
ORDINANCE
MATTER
REGULATIONS
VARIANCE
PARCEL
SEPARATE OWNERSHIP
VILLAGE
EXEMPTION
APPEALS
PROTECT
FLOOD
ZONING BOARD
AD2D
NY2D
ZBA
OWNER
LAND
APPELLATE
BUILDING PERMIT
RESOURCE PROTECTION
COURT
IRVINGTON
UNIMPROVED PARCEL
FLOOD PLAIN
RESIDENCE
PURPOSES
SUPRA
PROVISIONS


  IN THE MATTER OF SHAHID U. KHAN, RESPONDENT, v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF
  THE VILLAGE OF IRVINGTON ET AL., APPELLANTS.

    87 N.Y.2d 344,  662 N.E.2d 782,  639 N.Y.S.2d 302 (1996).
    January 16, 1996

   2 No. 249(1996 NY Int. 5)
   Decided January 16, 1996
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

    Kevin J. Plunkett, for Appellants.
   Richard T. Blancato, for Respondent.

    SMITH, J.:

    Respondent Khan sought to construct a residence on property that was
   made subject to environmental zoning regulations soon after he bought
   it. The primary issue in this case is whether a separate ordinance
   which provides an exemption from zoning regulations for property held
   in single and separate ownership gave respondent a right to build in
   spite of the new environmental zoning regulations. Because we
   determine that the ordinance providing the exemption here does not
   apply to the zoning regulation at issue designed to protect property
   from the effects of floods, we reverse.

    Respondent, Shahid U. Khan, seeks, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, to
   vacate and annul a decision by appellant, Zoning Board of Appeals of
   the Village of Irvington (hereinafter ZBA), which denied respondent's
   request for issuance of a building permit or, in the alternative, a
   variance. Respondent is the owner of two parcels (both improved and
   unimproved) of real property (Tax Map Sheet 10B, Block 229, Lots 83,
   84, 85 and portions of 81 and 82) located in the Village of Irvington,
   Westchester County, New York. The two parcels were purchased on
   January 27, 1989, under a single contract of sale with two separate
   deeds. No apportionment of the purchase price was made between the two
   parcels by the parties or the contract. However, the valuation of the
   two parcels for transfer tax purposes was $270,000 for the improved
   parcel and $10,000 for the unimproved parcel. Respondent acquired the
   unimproved parcel in his name only and acquired the parcel improved
   with a single-family dwelling jointly with his wife. The improved
   parcel is not in issue here. Both parcels were held by the previous
   owners as one lot. Respondent divided the parcels in order to build on
   the unimproved property and sell it.
SNIPPETS:
  • THE VILLAGE OF IRVINGTON ET AL.,
  • Richard T. Blancato, for Respondent.
  • Respondent Khan sought to construct a residence on property that was made subject to
  • The primary issue in this case is whether a separate ordinance which provides an exemption
  • Because we determine that the ordinance providing the exemption here does not apply to the
  • Respondent, Shahid U. Khan, seeks, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, to vacate and annul a
  • Respondent is the owner of two parcels of real property located in the Village of Irvington,
  • However, the valuation of the two parcels for transfer tax purposes was $270,000 for the
  • Respondent acquired the unimproved parcel in his name only and acquired the parcel improved
  • On January 30, 1989, after the purchase and division of the two parcels, respondent applied
  • Respondent was informed that because the subject property was located in a "flood plain
  • On February 28, 1989, approximately one month after respondent purchased the subject
  • The purpose of these regulations was to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as
  • Included within the regulations are all land located on a flood plain, wetlands, watershed
  • On March 29, 1989, respondent applied to the ZBA for a favorable interpretation of the zoning
  • Respondent contended that he had a constitutional right to build a residence on the property,
  • The court found the Resource regulations were not part of the minimum width and area
  • The Appellate Division held that since respondent owned the subject property in single and
  • Some of the courts of this State have recognized a common law right to an exemption from
  • 82 NY2d 735; Matter of Morin v Zoning Bd.
  • 163 AD2d 389;
  • of Appeals, supra; Matter of M.E.F. Bldrs., Inc. v Siegel, supra; Modular Homes Corp. v
  • In contrast, where the municipality has not created an exemption as a matter of legislative
  •    |