You are here: / Land Use
, ,

Zoning Board’s Determination Lacked a Rational Basis

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found the zoning board of appeals (ZBA’s) determination was not supported by the evidence and lacked a rational basis. The petitioners were denied permission to operate a concrete aggregate recycling business in an area where the processing of raw materials was prohibited. The zoning board denied the application on the ground that petitioners were going to process raw materials. However petitioners denied that they would process raw materials and there was no evidence, other than rumor, to the contrary. The court explained the criteria for review of a zoning determination:

“In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion”… . Where, as here, a determination is made by a zoning board of appeals after a public hearing, the determination of the zoning board should be upheld if it has a rational basis supported by evidence in the record (see CPLR 7803[4] …).

* * * The key determination made by the ZBA … was that the petitioners intended to engage in activities that included the processing of raw materials on the site, despite the petitioners’ repeated statements and assurances otherwise. The record is replete with instances where the petitioners disputed, as nothing more than baseless rumor and suspicion, the claim that they intended to engage in activities other than concrete aggregate recycling on the site. The record is also devoid of any evidence supporting the ZBA’s conclusion that the petitioners would engage in activities other than those which were explicitly approved or permitted as of right under the zoning and planning ordinance in force prior … . Matter of Green Materials of Westchester v Town of Cortlandt, 2015 NY Slip Op 07659, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, , ,

A Town’s Zoning Powers Include the Creation of a Zoning District for Senior Citizens—Residents of a Retirement Community Had the Power to Enforce the Zoning Ordinance Limiting the Use of the Community Portion of a Building to Community Residents—Agreement to Pay Social Membership Fees Re: a Community Golf Course Constituted a Covenant Which Ran with the Land

The Second Department, in a detailed decision dealing with many issues, resolved a dispute concerning the use of the community portion of a building within a retirement community, which included a golf course. The plaintiffs (residents) alleged the community portion of the building was to be used solely by the community residents and should not be used for special events involving non-residents. The Second Department determined (1) the plaintiffs had the power to enforce the zoning ordinance requiring that the community portion of the building be for the exclusive use of the retirement-community (over 55) residents, (2) the residents were benefitted by easements over the common areas held by the defendants and therefore were obligated to share in the cost of maintenance of those areas, and (3) the requirement that the residents pay social membership fees (re: the golf course) was a covenant which ran with the land, binding subsequent purchasers. The Second Department specifically held that zoning ordinances may properly create a zoning district for senior citizens:

… Town Law § 268(2) permits the individual plaintiffs to enforce the Town Code § 198-21.2(F)(1)(b) to the extent it gives them exclusive use of the community building portion of the combined building. The defendants contend, however, that even if the individual plaintiffs may use Town Law § 268(2) to seek enforcement of this portion of Town Code § 198-21.2(F)(1)(b), it, in fact, may not be enforced because the Town lacked the authority to regulate who owns or occupies land …  . A town does not act in excess of its authority when it creates a zoning district for senior citizens …, or when it limits the occupancy of dwelling units within a planned retirement community to persons aged 55 or over … . Since these are valid exercises of a town’s zoning power, it must follow that a town may also limit the use of a recreational facility within a senior residential community to those seniors living there.  * * *

The defendants were given an easement over the common areas and common elements, including roadways, walkways, and landscaped areas, for ingress, egress, and the retrieval of golf balls. … Generally, absent an express agreement, all persons benefitted by an easement must share ratably in the cost of its maintenance and repair … .  * * *

…[T]the defendants established that the covenant to pay social membership fees runs with the land, as the record demonstrates that the “grantor and grantee intended that the covenant should run with the land,” “the covenant is one touching or concerning the land with which it runs,” and “there is privity of estate between the . . . party claiming the benefit of the covenant and the right to enforce it, and the . . . party who rests under the burden of the covenant” … . Greens at Half Hollow Home Owners Assn., Inc. v Greens Golf Club, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06887, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

, , , ,

Petition Sufficiently Alleged the Town’s Restrictive Covenant Was Invalid (1) Because It Sought to Regulate the Owner of Land Rather than the Use of the Land, (2) Because It No Longer Could Accomplish Its Purpose, and (3) Because It Effected an Unconstitutional Taking of Petitioner’s Land

The Second Department determined petitioner had stated causes of action contesting the validity and enforceability of a restrictive covenant promulgated by the town requiring that condominiums built by petitioner be sold rather than leased. Petitioner had sufficiently alleged (1) the restrictive covenant was invalid because it regulated the person who owned the land (petitioner) rather than the use of the land, (2) the restrictive covenant was not enforceable because its purpose could not be accomplished, and (3) the restrictive covenant amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The court explained the applicable legal principles:

The power to zone “is not a general police power, but a power to regulate land use” … . “It is a fundamental rule that zoning deals basically with land use and not with the person who owns or occupies it'” … . Furthermore, ” a zoning ordinance will be struck down if it bears no substantial relation to the police power objective of promoting the public health, safety, morals or general welfare'” … .

“[R]estrictive covenants will be enforced when the intention of the parties is clear and the limitation is reasonable and not offensive to public policy” … . However, even the ” [p]urchase of property with knowledge of [a] restriction does not bar the purchaser from testing the validity of the zoning ordinance [because] the zoning ordinance in the very nature of things has reference to land rather than to owner'” … .

…[Petitioner] sufficiently alleged that the restrictive covenant is improper because it regulates [petiioner’s] ability as the owner of the property to rent the units rather than the use of the land itself. [Petitioner] has further alleged that, particularly in light of the provision permitting future owners to lease units in the development, the restrictive covenant “bears no substantial relation to . . . the public health, safety, morals or general welfare”… .

“Pursuant to RPAPL 1951(1), a restrictive covenant shall not be enforced if, at the time enforceability of the restriction is brought into question, it appears that the restriction is of no actual and substantial benefit to the persons seeking its enforcement or seeking a declaration or determination of its enforceability, either because the purpose of the restriction has already been accomplished or, by reason of changed conditions or other cause, its purpose is not capable of accomplishment, or for any other reason'” . Here, assuming that there is a benefit to be obtained by requiring the units to be sold rather than rented, [petitioner] has alleged that, because the rental restriction imposed by the restrictive covenant applies only to it and not to any subsequent owner of any of the units in the planned development, it is of no substantial benefit to the Town or its citizens. In support of its motion to dismiss, the Town has offered no explanation as to why this is not so. … * * *

With respect to the third cause of action, which alleged an unconstitutional taking based upon “denial of development, as opposed to excessive exactions” …, the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Agins v City of Tiburon (447 US 255) applies … . Pursuant to this test, “a zoning law effects a regulatory taking if either: (1) the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests’ or (2) the ordinance denies an owner economically viable use of his land'” … . However, “[a] reasonable land use restriction imposed by the government in the exercise of its police power characteristically diminishes the value of private property, but is not rendered unconstitutional merely because it causes the property’s value to be substantially reduced, or because it deprives the property of its most beneficial use” … . Thus, a court must examine “(1) [t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant’; (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations’; and (3) the character of the governmental action'”… . Blue Is. Dev., LLC v Town of Hempstead, 2015 NY Slip Op 06488, 2nd Dept 8-12-15

 

,

Court’s Review Powers Re: a Planning Board’s Denial of a Subdivision Application Explained

In upholding the Planning Board’s denial of petitioner’s subdivision application, the Second Department explained the court’s review criteria in this context: “The court will substitute its judgment for that of a planning board only when the determination was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or was irrational (… see CPLR 7803[3]…). When reviewing a planning board’s determination, courts consider substantial evidence only to determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board’s determination…”. [internal quotation marks omitted] The Second Department went on to look at the evidence, which, although conflicting in some aspects, included support for the rationality of the Planning Board’s ruling. Matter of Ostojic v Gee, 2015 NY Slip Op 06244, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

,

Defendants Ordered to Dismantle and Remove Boathouses Built Without Permits/Immediate Neighbors Had Standing to Bring an Action to Enjoin the Zoning Violations

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined that boathouses constructed without permits (required by the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code [SBC] and the Village of Lake Placid/Town of North Elba Land Use Code [LUC]) must be completely dismantled and removed.  The defendants were aware from the start that proceeding with the building of the boathouses without permits would be at their own risk. The permits were ultimately denied. The opinion is extensive and much of it is devoted to explaining the litigation/appeal history and refuting defendants’ arguments (not addressed here).  With respect to the finding that the neighbors had standing to bring an action to enjoin the asserted zoning violations re: one of the parcels (referred to as the “children’s parcel”), the court wrote:

As a threshold matter, Supreme Court correctly concluded that the neighbors have standing to challenge the asserted zoning violations and to seek injunctive relief against the children. Although municipal officials indeed are tasked with enforcing zoning ordinances within their boundaries (see Town Law § 268 [2]), this “does not prevent . . . private property owner[s] who suffer[] special damages from maintaining an action seeking to enjoin the continuance of the violation and obtain damages to vindicate [their] discrete, separate identifiable interest[s]” … . To establish standing to maintain a private common-law action to enjoin zoning violations, a private plaintiff must establish that, due to the defendant’s activities, he or she will sustain special damages that are “different in kind and degree from the community generally” and that the asserted interests fall “within the zone of interest to be protected” by the statute or ordinance at issue … .

To that end, the neighbors both alleged and submitted proof that they own land (improved with single-family homes) on either side of the children’s parcel and that the children’s boathouse was built without the permits required by the LUC and SBC. The neighbors also demonstrated that the children’s boathouse violates various provisions of the LUC, including those governing set-backs and prohibiting accessory structures on land that lacks a principal building (see Joint Village of Lake Placid/Town of North Elba Land Use Code part IV, art III, § 4; art V, appendix F [II]). Where, as here, the offending premises are immediately adjacent to the neighbors’ property, “a loss of value may be presumed from the depreciation of the character of the immediate neighborhood, and the [neighbors] need not allege specific injury” … . We find that the neighbors’ specific allegations of close proximity give rise to an inference of damage and injury, thereby permitting them to maintain action No. 2. Moreover, the neighbors have demonstrated that their interests fall within the “zone of interest” protected by the LUC, in that violations thereof adversely affect their privacy and property values … . Indeed, we recognized as much in our prior decision permitting the neighbors to intervene, concluding that they “have an interest in the litigation by virtue of their status as owners of adjoining premises” … . Town of N. Elba v Grimditch, 2015 NY Slip Op 05740, 3rd Dept 7-2-15

 

, ,

Zoning Board’s Interpretation of Village Ordinances Upheld—Keeping of Chickens Is Not an Allowed “Residential Use”

The Third Department determined the village zoning board of appeals’ interpretation of a zoning ordinance had a rational basis.  Petitioner sought a ruling allowing him to keep chickens in a residential zone. Because “poultry husbandry” was specifically mentioned in the zoning ordinances as an agricultural use, and was not mentioned as an allowed residential use, the board’s interpretation was upheld as “neither irrational nor unreasonable:”

Here, Village of Champlain Zoning Code § 119-20 (B) states that the permitted uses in an R1 residential district are “one- and two-family dwellings” and “accessory uses.” The code allows for accessory uses that are “of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the structure, such as garages, outbuildings, swimming pools, energy collection devices and the keeping of domesticated animals” (Village of Champlain Zoning Code § 119-16). The code also defines “agriculture” as “[t]he use of land for agricultural purposes, including tilling of the soil, dairying, pasture, apiculture, arboriculture, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, forestry, animal and poultry husbandry and the necessary accessory uses for packing or storing of products” (Village of Champlain Zoning Code § 119-16). The code further states that “[a]ny use not listed as permitted [w]ithin a [z]oning district is assumed to be prohibited in that [z]oning district” (Village of Champlain Zoning Code § 119-191). Matter of Meier v Village of Champlain Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 05245, 3rd Dept 6-18-15

 

, , , ,

Town Planning Board’s Approval of the Installation of Wind Turbines Should Not Have Been Reversed—Board Properly Considered All the Factors Mandated by the Land Use Ordinance and Supreme Court Did Not Have the Authority to Substitute Its Judgment for the Board’s

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town planning board had properly issued a special use permit for the installation of wind turbines. The court noted that the burden of proof on the owner for seeking a special exception (special use permit) is lower than the burden for seeking a variance.  The court held that all of the analytical factors mandated by the land use ordinance had been properly considered by the board and Supreme Court did not have the authority to substitute its own judgment for the board’s:

The Land Use Ordinance permits specified uses in the area where the project is to be built and allows “[a]ll other uses” for which a special use permit is obtained. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, while the project is not allowed as of right in the district, the fact that it is “permitted . . . is ‘tantamount to a legislative finding that [it] is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood'” … . As such, “the burden of proof on an owner seeking a special exception is lighter than that on an owner seeking a variance, [with] the former only being required to show compliance with any legislatively imposed conditions on an otherwise permitted use” … . The determination of the Board that those conditions had been met here will be upheld if it “has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record” … .

The parties do not dispute upon this appeal, and we agree with Supreme Court, that the Board’s findings with regard to six of the eight conditions enumerated in the Land Use Ordinance are supported by substantial evidence. The first of the remaining two conditions requires that the “[l]ocation, use and size of structure, nature and intensity of operations involved, size of site in relation to it, and location of site with respect to existing or future streets giving access, are such that it will be in harmony with orderly development of the district.” The second requires that the “[l]ocation, nature and height of buildings, walls, fences and signs will not discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair their value.”

With regard to those two conditions, the wind turbines are almost 500 feet tall when the rotor blades are fully vertical [FN2]. Notwithstanding their size, the Board pointed out that the turbines are located in an area where high-voltage electric transmission lines have already altered the landscape, and noted that other factors minimized the impact of the project upon the viewshed. The project will have minimal impact upon traffic after construction is completed and, given the economic benefits that will accrue to participating landowners, the Board found that it would help to preserve existing uses of the surrounding properties. Moreover, the Board cited a study in the record finding that property values would not be impacted by the project. The Board also pointed to proof that the applicant had entered into setback agreements with nonparticipating landowners who resided within 2,000 feet of the turbines, further ensuring that the project would not impair the use of nearby parcels or development in the zoning district. Supreme Court pointed to conflicting evidence submitted by petitioners with regard to both conditions but, even if that evidence was properly considered, “a court may not substitute its own judgment” where substantial evidence supports the determination of the Board … . Matter of Frigault v Town of Richfield Planning Bd., 2015 NY Slip Op 04355, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

, ,

Criteria for an Application for a Use Variance Explained—Not Met Here

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a petition to annul the zoning board of appeals’ grant of a use variance to the respondent.  Respondent operates a manufacturing facility in a residential zone.  The facility pre-dated the ordinance making the zone exclusively residential.  The Third Department, in a previous appeal, determined that an addition to the manufacturing facility constituted an unlawful expansion of a nonconforming use.  Thereafter the respondent procured a use variance from the zoning board of appeals.  In concluding the use variance must be annulled, the Third Department explained that the applicant for a use variance must demonstrate the property cannot “yield a reasonable return if used for any of the purposes permitted as it is currently zoned…”.  In this case, the respondent was required to show that using the property for manufacturing without using the disputed addition would not yield a reasonable return. And the respondent was required to demonstrate that converting the entire property, not just the disputed addition, to residential use would not yield a reasonable return.  The respondent indicated only that the addition would be used to store old equipment and only attempted to demonstrate that conversion of the disputed addition (not the entire property) to residential use would not yield a reasonable return. Neither showing was sufficient:

An applicant for a use variance bears the burden of demonstrating, among other things, that the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used for any of the purposes permitted as it is currently zoned (see Town Law § 267-b [2] [b]…). Where, as here, a use variance is sought to expand a nonconforming use, “the applicant must demonstrate that the land cannot yield a reasonable return if used as it then exists or for any other use allowed in the zone” … . Such an inability to yield a reasonable return must be established through the submission of “dollars and cents” proof with respect to each permitted use (… .

Since the operation of the industrial manufacturing facility, as it existed at the time the prohibitory zoning ordinance was enacted in 1983, was a nonconforming use that was permitted to continue because the property was devoted to such a use before the ordinance took effect, it was a use that was permitted in that zone. Further, the property is located in an R1 residential district and, thus, residential uses were also permitted in that zone. Therefore, respondents had the burden of proving that their property could not yield a reasonable return if used as a presently existing nonconforming use — i.e., as a manufacturing facility without use of the addition for manufacturing purposes — or if used for any residential use … . Respondents’ proof was insufficient to meet either of these showings.

With regard to whether the property could yield a reasonable rate of return if continued to be used for manufacturing purposes without utilizing the 800-square-foot addition, the evidence presented at the hearing established that the addition is used to house older equipment that has been replaced by more advanced, efficient equipment. * * *

Even if there were sufficient proof to demonstrate an inability to realize a reasonable return on the property if used as it presently exists for manufacturing purposes, no evidence was presented as to the financial implications of converting the entire property to residential use, [*3]which is a use permitted in that zone. While financial evidence was presented on the cost of converting the addition to a residential use, “[it] is . . . with respect to the whole tract that reasonableness of return is to be measured”… . The fact that respondents’ application for a use variance was limited to the addition is of no moment; the inquiry as to an inability to realize a reasonable return may not be segmented to examine less than all of an owner’s property rights subject to a regulatory regime … . Matter of Nemeth v Village of Hancock Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 03008, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

, ,

Courts Should Not Defer to Zoning Board of Appeals’ Determination of a Purely Legal Question (the Meaning of a Town Code Provision)

The Third Department determined Supreme Court erred when it deferred to the zoning board of appeals’ (ZBA’s) interpretation of the town code (because the interpretation was a purely legal issue) and the ZBA erred in its interpretation of the code. The Third Department found that the word “dwelling” was encompassed by the word “building” and, therefore, the code provision at issue allowed the construction of 74 single family dwellings on petitioner’s (Boni’s) parcel:

Supreme Court erred in deferring to the ZBA’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance, and the ZBA erred in its interpretation of the Town Code as it pertains to the Boni parcel. Although courts generally grant deference to a zoning board of appeals regarding its determination, no deference is required if the issue is one of pure legal interpretation of the zoning law … . Because zoning ordinances are in derogation of common law, they must be strictly construed against the municipality that drafted them, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of property owners … . The Boni parcel is located in a B-1 zoning district, which has 18 listed permitted uses, including one- and two-family dwellings (see Town Code of the Town of Clifton Park § 208-32 [A] [14]). Pursuant to § 208-33 (B) of the Town Code, in a B-1 district, “[n]o preexisting building(s) shall be rehabilitated or remodeled or new building(s) constructed on a vacant lot to a size greater than 12% of the lot size, with no single building to have a maximum square footage exceeding 4,800 square feet. Multiple buildings on a lot are allowed as long as the overall density limitations of this article are not exceeded.”

Essentially, petitioners argue that the word “buildings” in the last sentence of § 208-33 (B) of the Town Code includes one-family dwellings, leading to the conclusion that the Town Code permits them to build multiple dwellings on the Boni parcel as long as they comply with the density limitations. * * *

We agree with respondents that respondent Town of Clifton Park probably never envisioned a landowner being able to build 74 one-family dwellings on a single, unsubdivided parcel in a business district. Nevertheless, the plain language of the Town Code, strictly construed against the municipality, must be interpreted as permitting multiple buildings — including one-family dwellings — on a single lot as long as they do not exceed the density limitations … . Matter of Boni Enters LLC v Zoning Bd of Appeals of the Town of Clifton Park, 2015 NY Slip Op 00428, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

, ,

Less Stringent “Area Variance” Criteria, Rather than the More Stringent “Use Variance” Criteria, Properly Applied to a Restaurant’s Request for a Variance Re: Off-Street Parking Requirements

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined when “area variance,” as opposed to “use variance,” criteria should be applied to off-street parking requirements.  The zoning board had allowed a variance from the off-street parking requirements for a restaurant under the less stringent “area variance” standard.  The petitioner, a neighboring property owner, sought a declaration that the more stringent “use variance” criteria should be applied.  The Court of Appeals disagreed with the petitioner and affirmed:

…[A]s of July 1, 1994, General City Law § 81-b (1) has defined a “use variance” as an authorization for the use of land for a purpose “otherwise not allowed or . . . prohibited” in the zoning district; and an “area variance” as an authorization to use land “in a manner which is not allowed by the dimensional or physical requirements” of the zoning regulations (see also Town Law § 267 [1]; Village Law § 7-712 [1]). Off-street parking requirements, while differing depending on use, regulate how the property's area may be developed, akin to minimum lot size or set-back restrictions. Accordingly, area variance rules apply to requests to relax off-street parking requirements so long as the underlying use is permitted in the zoning district; use variance rules prevail only if the variance is sought in connection with a use prohibited or otherwise not allowed in the district (see generally, Terry Rice, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 61, Town Law § 267-b at 294-295).

In this case, [the restaurant] applied for an off-street parking variance in connection with a change in the storefront's use from a retail gift shop to a restaurant. Because both uses are permitted in the zoning district, the ZBA properly considered the application as a request for an area variance. Matter of Colin Realty Co LLC v Town of N Hempstead, 2014 NY Slip Op 07008, CtApp 10-16-14

 

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