You are here: / / Denial of Special Use Permit Reversed As Arbitrary and Capricious/Difference...
,

Denial of Special Use Permit Reversed As Arbitrary and Capricious/Difference Between Special Use Permit and Use Variance Explained

The Second Department determined that the denial of 7-Eleven’s petition for a special exception (also referred to as a special use permit) for operation of a convenience store was arbitrary and capricious.  The court explained the difference between a special use permit and a use variance. A special use permit gives a property owner permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance but not necessarily allowed as of right. A use variance gives the owner permission to use the property in a manner inconsistent with the zoning ordinance.  The proof burden is much lighter for a special use permit, as opposed to a use variance.  The proponent of a special use permit need only show compliance with legislatively imposed conditions, while the proponent of a use variance must show undue hardship in complying with the ordinance. Here no evidence was presented to support the denial of the special use permit:

A special exception, commonly known as a special use permit, “gives [a property owner] permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, although not necessarily allowed as of right” … . By contrast, a use variance gives a property owner permission to use the property in a manner inconsistent with a local zoning ordinance. “The significance of this distinction is that the inclusion of the permitted use in the ordinance is tantamount to a legislative finding that the permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood” … . Accordingly, “the burden of proof on an owner seeking a special exception is lighter than that on an owner seeking a [use] variance, the former only being required to show compliance with any legislatively imposed conditions on an otherwise permitted use, while the latter must show an undue hardship in complying with the ordinance” … . Matter of 7-Eleven, Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Mineola, 2015 NY Slip Op 03544, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

You might also like
ABSENT A FINDING THE GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON FAILED TO PROPERLY DISCHARGE HER DUTIES, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE GUARDIAN TO PAY THE ACCOUNTANT WHO ASSISTED IN PREPARING THE FINAL ACCOUNT FROM HER OWN FUNDS (SECOND DEPT).
LOCK BOX ON THE OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING ON WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK HIS HEAD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS (SECOND DEPT).
SMALL CLAIMS ASSESSMENT REVIEW (SCAR) CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
Release Given By Injured Party to a Tortfeasor Relieves that Tortfeasor of Any Liability for Contribution
Online Promotion Which Offered a Coupon to Persons Who Provided His or Her Email Address Did Not Constitute an “Offer” Which Could Be “Accepted” to Create a Contract/In Light of the Disclaimers the Promotion Was Not “Deceptive” and Plaintiff Suffered No “Actual Injury” within the Meaning of the General Business Law
Closed Box Properly Seized and Searched Under the Plain View Doctrine
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO ALLOW AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE OR INDUCEMENT (SECOND DEPT
BECAUSE A LIBERTY INTEREST IS AT STAKE, RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE REVOCATION OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE ORDER OF COMMITMENT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Pertinent to Litigation” Privilege for Statements Made by an Attorney... No Appeal Lies from a Vacated Order