You are here: / / ZONING BOARD DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE DURATIONAL LIMIT...

ZONING BOARD DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE DURATIONAL LIMIT ON PERMIT FOR A NONCONFORMING USE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the zoning board did not have statutory authority to impose a durational limit on a permit allowing property in a residential zone to be used as a parking lot for the adjacent restaurant:

The Board did not have the authority to impose a durational limit on a permit granted pursuant to Town Code § 70-225(E). “Judicial review of a determination by a zoning board is generally limited to determining whether the action taken by the zoning board was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion” … . “[W]here the issue involves pure legal interpretation of statutory terms, deference [to the board] is not required” … .

“[C]onditions imposed by a Board of Zoning Appeals must be authorized by the zoning ordinance” … . “[I]f a zoning board imposes unreasonable or improper conditions, those conditions may be annulled although the variance is upheld” … .

Here, Town Code § 70-225(E) does not explicitly provide the Board with the authority to impose durational limits upon permits granted pursuant to that section. Thus, it was improper for the Board to include a five-year durational limit on a permit granted pursuant to that provision, and the durational limit must be annulled … . Matter of Citrin v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 2016 NY Slip Op 06827, 2nd Dept 10-19-16

 

ZONING (ZONING BOARD DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE DURATIONAL LIMIT ON PERMIT FOR A NONCONFORMING USE)

You might also like
HERE THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (CPLR 213(4)) ESTOPPED PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUING THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED AND ADJUDICATED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONLY TWO OF THE 19 PLAINTIFFS RESIDED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
Mother’s Interference With Relationship Between Father and Child Warranted Modification of Custody Arrangement Entered Into by Stipulation
NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 2214 (a), CROSS MOTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE VICTIM’S EYE INJURY ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF ‘SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY;’ BASED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND (SECOND DEPT).
FEE-SHARING AGREEMENT VIOLATED JUDICIARY LAW 491 AND COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BY A COURT (SECOND DEPT).
THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT THAT MOTHER IN THIS CHILD-SUPPORT PROCEEDING WAS INFORMED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL, HER RIGHT TO AN ADJOURNMENT TO RETAIN COUNSEL, OR HER WAIVER OF THAT RIGHT; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
CERTAIN DISCOVERY DEMANDS IN THIS NEGLIGENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ON BEHALF OF A FORMER RESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PHYSICAL PARTITION OR SALE IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY... DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENT PRESERVED BY A HEARING; HAD THE HEARING...