You are here: / / NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY...
,

NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly annulled a use variance granted to allow the construction of a car wash. The court explained the analytical criteria:

“To qualify for a use variance premised upon unnecessary hardship there must be a showing that (1) the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for permitted purposes as currently zoned, (2) the hardship resulted from unique characteristics of the property, (3) the proposed use would not alter the character of the neighborhood, and (4) the alleged hardship was not self-created” … .

With regard to the first element, “[i]t is well settled that a landowner who seeks a use variance must demonstrate factually, by dollars and cents proof, an inability to realize a reasonable return under existing permissible uses'” … . * * * The … parties did not … submit any actual financial information, such as the original purchase price of the property, the expenses and carrying costs of the property, the present value of the property, the taxes, the amount of any mortgages or other encumbrances, the amount of income presently realized, if any, or an estimate as to what a reasonable return on the entire property or any portion should be … .

Entitlement to a use variance is not established merely by proof that the proposed use would be more profitable than a smaller scaled project not requiring a use variance .. . The … parties are entitled to a reasonable return, not the most profitable return … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly found that the ZBA’s determination that the Splash parties established unnecessary hardship was arbitrary and capricious since it does not have a rational basis in the record … . Matter of DeFeo v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Bedford, 2016 NY Slip Op 02082, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

ZONING (USE VARIANCE, NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN)/LAND USE (USE VARIANCE, NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN)/USE VARIANCE (NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN)

 

You might also like
HERE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY OFFERED A DETAILED, CREDIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE LAW OFFICE FAILURE WHICH RESULTED IN MISSING THE DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING DISCOVERY, AS WELL AS THE DEMONSTRATION OF POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CAUSES OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO ENFORCE THE PRECLUSION ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Right of Confrontation Not Violated by Results of Tests by Persons Who Were Not Called as Witnesses
Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff, a Sidewalk Pedestrian, Was Struck by Window-Washing Equipment—The Window Washing Service Was an Independent Contractor Hired by the Building Manager—Question of Fact Raised Whether a Duty to the Plaintiff Ran from the Building Manager Because of the Inherently Dangerous Work the Independent Contractor Was Hired to Do and Because of the Nature of the Contract Between the Building Manager and the Building Owner—The Court Noted that the Property Owners Were Not Liable Because Ownership and Control of the Building on the Property Had Been Transferred (to the Building Owner)
Failure to Provide Cover Sheet Fatal to Designating Petition
Security at Homeless Shelter Is a Governmental Function–City Immune from Suit by Plaintiff Who Was Assaulted at the Shelter/Private Security Company Not Immune/Plaintiff Was a Third-Party Beneficiary of the Contract Between the Department of Homeless Services and the Security Company/Security Company Did Not Demonstrate It Was Free from Negligence and the Assault Was Not Foreseeable
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER WALKING ON THE REBAR GRID WAS AN INHERENT RISK OF THE JOB AND WHETHER THE GRID WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED A DIRECTED VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Submit Management Agreement Required Dismissal of Property Managing Agent’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a Slip and Fall Case—the Terms of the Agreement Determine the Agent’s Liability
Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Work Done by Independent Contractor

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED... EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A BACKPACK.