You are here: / / ZONING BOARD PROPERLY CONDUCTED A SEQRA REVIEW AND PROPERLY ISSUED A SUBSTANTIAL...
,

ZONING BOARD PROPERLY CONDUCTED A SEQRA REVIEW AND PROPERLY ISSUED A SUBSTANTIAL SETBACK VARIANCE, REVIEW CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined the zoning board of appeals properly issued a negative declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and properly issued a substantial setback variance. The court explained its limited role in assessing the propriety of actions taken by zoning boards:

​

“[I]t is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives, but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively” … . While courts must review the record to determine if the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a “hard look” at them, and made a “reasoned elaboration” of the basis for its determination … , “[n]othing in the law requires an agency to reach a particular result on any issue, or permits the courts to second-guess the agency’s choice, which can be annulled only if arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence” … .

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Planning Board took the required hard look at the project proposal and set forth well-reasoned explanations for finding that the project would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. …

​

In determining whether to grant an area variance, a zoning board of appeals is required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted … . A zoning board must also consider “(1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance” … .

Here, the record establishes that the Zoning Board considered and properly weighed the relevant factors in determining to grant the area variance. Although the variance is indisputably substantial, there is no evidence that granting the variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or have an adverse effect or impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, that the benefit to the applicant could be achieved by other means, or that the applicant’s difficulty was self-created … . Matter of Beekman Delamater Props., LLC v Village of Rhinebeck Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2017 NY Slip Op 04112, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

ZONING (ZONING BOARD PROPERLY CONDUCTED A SEQRA REVIEW AND PROPERLY ISSUED A SUBSTANTIAL SETBACK VARIANCE, REVIEW CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (SETBACK VARIANCE, ZONING BOARD PROPERLY CONDUCTED A SEQRA REVIEW AND PROPERLY ISSUED A SUBSTANTIAL SETBACK VARIANCE, REVIEW CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/VARIANCES (ZONING, ZONING BOARD PROPERLY CONDUCTED A SEQRA REVIEW AND PROPERLY ISSUED A SUBSTANTIAL SETBACK VARIANCE, REVIEW CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS OWN ADJOINING LOTS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED BY THE SAME GRANTOR WITH A RESTRICTION ALLOWING ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT; PLAINTIFF HAD THE REQUISITE “VERTICAL PRIVITY” TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION WHEN DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT; DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COVENANT WAS UNENFORCEABLE DUE TO RPAPL 1951 BECAUSE THE AREA HAD CHANGED (SECOND DEPT).
REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS NOT MET, PROOF OF MAILING INSUFFICIENT.
Subcontractor Which Did Not Supervise Injured Plaintiff or Control Site Safety May Still Be Liable Under Common-Law Negligence for Creating the Dangerous Condition
Failure to Check Box on Cover Sheet Fatal to Designating Petitions
IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING AND RETENTION CASE, THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF A NON-PARTY WITNESS WHO ALLEGED IMPROPER CONDUCT BY DEFENDANT DOCTOR ARE DISCOVERABLE ONLY TO THE EXTENT THEY INCLUDE NON-PRIVILEGED INFORMATION INDICATING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S EMPLOYER WAS AWARE OF THE ALLEGATIONS, THE NON-PARTY WITNESS DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY DISCUSSING HER MEDICAL HISTORY IN A DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PROHIBITED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT FALSE ARREST AND POLICE BRUTALITY LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST THE OFFICER (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Condition Alleged to Have Caused Plaintiff to Fall–Defendant Therefore Not Entitled to Summary Judgment

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

ABSENCE OF A COMMA, STANDING ALONE, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DICTATE THE MEANING OF... BUT FOR TEST FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE IS NOT THE SAME AS SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE,...