Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lots of country clubs and private schools occupy large amounts in land in relatively dense urban areas of Westchester. I am curious if locals ever feel resentful of them and wish their land was put to better use ? I know folks are going to reply capitalism, yada, yada yada and it's their legal right etc... But times have changed and I just don't see what value they provide to residents of dense urban areas?
Lots of country clubs and private schools occupy large amounts in land in relatively dense urban areas of Westchester. I am curious if locals ever feel resentful of them and wish their land was put to better use ? I know folks are going to reply capitalism, yada, yada yada and it's their legal right etc... But times have changed and I just don't see what value they provide to residents of dense urban areas?
Country clubs and private schools are legal entities owning land. If you want to take it, it better be for some massive public good. I have never felt resentment toward any landowner using land they paid for however they want with the limited exception for some illegal or unsafe use. Tennis, golf, education are all perfectly legal uses of private land. No resentment here. In fact, I feel some resentment toward anyone who tells someone what they should do with their own land. I understand zoning and banning illegal uses, but anything else, just stay out of it or buy the land yourself.
I understand zoning and banning illegal uses, but anything else, just stay out of it or buy the land yourself.
Do current zoning laws in Westchester allow for country clubs and private schools? I get that zoning laws allowed them 100+ years ago when the area was mostly farmland. But can one do it now? If yes, then I suppose I will drop my argument against them.
Do current zoning laws in Westchester allow for country clubs and private schools? I get that zoning laws allowed them 100+ years ago when the area was mostly farmland. But can one do it now? If yes, then I suppose I will drop my argument against them.
Yes, zoning laws allow for private land to be used as schools or recreational facilities (whether it be private pools, golf courses, tennis courts, or essentially anything). But each parcel of land is zoned. Completely undeveloped land in this county is a relatively small percentage of land. But every developed piece of land is zoned. So every country club and school is zoned. If a parcel is to change its use, there are laws and procedures to consider any change. But you do not appear to be discussing a change. You are suggesting to take an existing piece of land and stopping its use for no reason other than that you do not like it. Absent a constitutional taking of land, you cannot do this.
Yes, zoning laws allow for private land to be used as schools or recreational facilities (whether it be private pools, golf courses, tennis courts, or essentially anything). But each parcel of land is zoned. Completely undeveloped land in this county is a relatively small percentage of land. But every developed piece of land is zoned. So every country club and school is zoned. If a parcel is to change its use, there are laws and procedures to consider any change. But you do not appear to be discussing a change. You are suggesting to take an existing piece of land and stopping its use for no reason other than that you do not like it. Absent a constitutional taking of land, you cannot do this.
My question is a little different or maybe I am not understanding how zoning works. Do present-day zoning laws allow one to put a new golf-course in the same areas as where these country clubs exist? In other words, could I buy land next to a country club and put a golf course there today?
Or are you saying once you buy land that is zoned for some purpose, you can keep using that land for the same purpose forever?
My question is a little different or maybe I am not understanding how zoning works. Do present-day zoning laws allow one to put a new golf-course in the same areas as where these country clubs exist? In other words, could I buy land next to a country club and put a golf course there today?
Or are you saying once you buy land that is zoned for some purpose, you can keep using that land for the same purpose forever?
So you are asking that if an owner uses a piece of land now for some specific recreational purpose and sells the land to a new owner who wants to continue the same purpose, can the land maintain the use forever. The answer is (again absent the very rare government taking and absent a safety or illegal practice) of course.
Now if you are talking about buying land adjacent to a current plot used for a recreational purposes, and you want to use that land for the same purpose as the land next to it, well then you would have to look at the zoning of the land you are buying. Assuming that it is some residential zoned area, like an R-30, then you would need to apply for a special use permit. This process is designed to protect areas from changes in use that may alter or impact the other stakeholders use of their land. But this is not something used to stop current and existing uses of land. These are very different things. While I am not a particularly big fan of golf courses and country clubs, I very much support these landowners and their rights to use their land. That is not to say that I would want a competing golf course to buy homes next door, knock them down and build a new golf course. Obviously public hearing on such zoning special uses would be held and the elected or appointed officials would review the new proposed use with the comments of citizens and make a decision.
But again, this is far different that forcing an existing user to stop being able to use their land when there is no safety or illegal use going on. Just one where you think there are better things to do with land than play golf, tennis, swim, or educate children at it.
So you are asking that if an owner uses a piece of land now for some specific recreational purpose and sells the land to a new owner who wants to continue the same purpose, can the land maintain the use forever. The answer is (again absent the very rare government taking and absent a safety or illegal practice) of course.
Has zoning for land ever changed, thereby, forcing the owners to either sell or change that activity?
Seems a bit odd that people can use the land for generations only because it was allowed back when they bought it. Towns can change, but the existing uses can not?
Has zoning for land ever changed, thereby, forcing the owners to either sell or change that activity?
Seems a bit odd that people can use the land for generations only because it was allowed back when they bought it. Towns can change, but the existing uses can not?
Has zoning for land ever changed, thereby, forcing the owners to either sell or change that activity?
Seems a bit odd that people can use the land for generations only because it was allowed back when they bought it. Towns can change, but the existing uses can not?
If there is a legality or safety issue, of course. Like for example if a use was for burying toxic wastes for 100 years, a municipality can enact laws that preclude toxic waste disposal by burying it because it causes bodily injury to people in adjacent land. So while the zoning of the land has not changed from industrial, but the type of industrial activity may be limited or precluded. But if you want to have land that has been used as a wood products manufacturing plant for 100 years and now you want to tell that person they must stop and either build condos on it or sell it to someone to build condos, unless there is some type of safety issue, which I do not see, then you cannot stop the use. The only alternative is for the municipality to take the land via the constitutional takings clause (eminent domain).
There is a farmhouse on the corner of my street built in the early to mid 1800s. Its been occupied by numerous family over the past nearly 200 years. I would find it a bit odd that anyone would think the town can say we do not like houses here, instead we think this is a better place for a strip mall, we are going to change the zoning from residential to commercial shopping and the family has to find somewhere else to live. I find supporting such a thing to be odd.
There is a farmhouse on the corner of my street built in the early to mid 1800s. Its been occupied by numerous family over the past nearly 200 years. I would find it a bit odd that anyone would think the town can say we do not like houses here, instead we think this is a better place for a strip mall, we are going to change the zoning from residential to commercial shopping and the family has to find somewhere else to live. I find supporting such a thing to be odd.
I wouldn't have a problem with that as long as I was fairly compensated. It's a win for the town and a win to my pocket book. In fact such a thing happened to a condo I owned. A developer offered everyone double the market rate to buy the whole building. They needed 75% of owners to agree. Took several years of multiple rejected offers till they got their 75% yes. I was happy and the area is happy as they developed the condo into a nice apartment complex ( the old condo was rather poorly maintained and visually unappealing ).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
