You are here: / / NO SHOWING A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A...

NO SHOWING A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A CONFORMING USE, USE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the grant of a use variance by the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) should have been annulled. The parties seeking the variance (JCC and Lynn) did not present any proof that a reasonable return was not possible with a conforming use:

​

“No . . . use variance shall be granted without a showing by the applicant that applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship.” In order to prove such unnecessary hardship, the Zoning Ordinance requires the applicant to establish, among other things, that, for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular district where the property is located, the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return and that the lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence… . In other words, the applicant must demonstrate “by dollars and cents proof” that he or she cannot realize a reasonable return by any conforming use… . As part of that demonstration, the applicant must necessarily establish what a reasonable return for the property is … . An applicant’s failure to establish that he or she cannot realize a reasonable return by any conforming use requires denial of the use variance by the ZBA … .

Here, JCC and Lynn failed to present any evidence to the ZBA to satisfy the first requirement of unnecessary hardship, i.e., that they could not realize a reasonable return on the property by any conforming use. In the absence of such evidence in dollars and cents form, there is no rational basis for the ZBA’s finding that the premises would not yield a reasonable return in the absence of the requested use variance and, for that reason, we conclude that the ZBA’s determination must be annulled … . Leone v City of Jamestown Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2017 NY Slip Op 04980, 4th Dept 6-16-17

 

ZONING (USE VARIANCE, NO SHOWING A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A CONFORMING USE, USE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/USE VARIANCE (ZONING, NO SHOWING A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A CONFORMING USE, USE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
17-Year Pre-Indictment Delay Did Not Violate Right to Speedy Trial
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION.
DEFENDANT DRIVER STRUCK A DISABLED CAR WHICH WAS SIDEWAYS IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY; THE CAR WAS BLACK AND THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED AT NIGHT IN A STEADY RAIN; DEFENDANT DRIVER CLAIMED TO BE GOING THE SPEED LIMIT, 65 MPH; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
AN EXCEPTION TO THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIED, ALLOWING TESTIMONY DESCRIBING THE CONTENTS OF DESTROYED VIDEO SURVEILLANCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION CASE, THE INVESTIGATOR’S ASKING DEFENDANT WHERE HE RESIDED WAS DESIGNED TO ELICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE WAS NOT PEDIGREE INFORMATION AND A CPL 710.30 NOTICE WAS REQUIRED, ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENT WAS HARMLESS ERROR HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).
GRANDMOTHER DEMONSTRATED “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” SUCH THAT SHE HAD STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (FOURTH DEPT.).
Lowering Health Insurance Benefits for School-District Retirees Below Level Afforded Active Employees Violated the Insurance Moratorium Statute

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

SOLAR AND WIND EASEMENTS, WHICH WERE RECORDED AFTER THE MORTGAGES, ARE SUBJECT... MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION POSTED ON FACEBOOK SHOULD HAVE BEEN...