Case ID: ad_269/html/1054-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Frank Ostrove et al., Petitioners, against Jack Cohen et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach, Respondents.
   Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act for a review of the determination of the Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach in granting the application of Alice G. Murtha for a variance to enable her to change her one-family house to a two-family house in a Residence A District, in which the latter use is prohibited. Determination annulled, with $50 costs and disbursements, payable by the Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach, and the application for such variance denied. There was no proof of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships ” within the meaning of subdivision 2 of section 24 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the absence of such proof, it was improper to allow the variance. A general restriction may not be destroyed u * * * by piece-meal exemption of pieces of land equally subject to the hardship created in the restriction * * The remedy in such case is to procure a change in the zoning ordinance in the area. (Matter of Levy V. Bd. of Standards & Appeals, 267 N. Y. 347, 353-354; Matter of Von Elm V. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Hempstead, 258 App. Div. 989.) Present — Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ. [See 270 App. Div. 818.]