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
WAIVER OF INDICTMENT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) Applied to the Driver of a Town Truck—The Driver Was Using a Plow to Remove Water and Debris from a Road—Because the Driver Was Acting On His Own and Had Not Been Assigned to Remove the Water and Debris, the Question Raised on Appeal Was Whether the Driver Was Doing “Work” within the Meaning of Section 1103 (b) such that the Statutory Standard, as Opposed to the Ordinary Negligence Standard, Applied
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AND VILLAGE REGULATIONS, THE HERKIMER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AS THE OWNER OF PROPERTY ABANDONED BY THE TENANT, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNPAID WATER CHARGES INCURRED BY THE TENANT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ACKNOWLEDGED VIOLATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE WAS MERELY “SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE” TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE FACTFINDER AND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
Indictment Dismissed after Trial as Multiplicitous and Duplicitous/Grand Larceny Can Not Be Based Upon the Violation of a Regulation that Is Civil in Nature
Reversible Error to Instruct the Jury On an Affirmative Defense Over Defense Counsel’s Objection
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENTIONALLY AIDED THE PRINCIPALS IN THE KIDNAPPING; THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED A WEAPON, HOWEVER, WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT).
WHEN A WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT FROM A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO HIM BY THE POLICE IS DEEMED “CONFIRMATORY,” THAT CONCLUSION IS TANTAMOUNT TO A DETERMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE POLICE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS NOT SUGGESTIVE AND COULD NOT HAVE LED TO THE MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE WITNESS KNEW THE DEFENDANT WELL; HERE THE PROOF THE IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH 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

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