You are here: / Land Use
,

PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL BASED UPON NEW INFORMATION, DESPITE THE FACT THE APPROVAL HAD BEEN RESCINDED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the village planning board had the authority to reaffirm a subdivision and site plan approval based upon new evidence, despite the fact the plan had previously been rescinded:

Petitioners argue that the Village Planning Board lacked the authority to reaffirm the 2010 subdivision and site plan approval. We disagree. “Despite the lack of statutory authority, a planning board may reconsider a determination if there has been a material change of circumstances since its initial approval of the plat or new evidence is presented” (Matter of 1066 Land Corp. v Planning Bd. of Town of Austerlitz, 218 AD2d 887, 887 [1995] [citations omitted]). Given that the record discloses that the Village Planning Board was presented with new information in the amended subdivision and site plan, we find that it was authorized to reaffirm the approval notwithstanding the fact that it had been previously rescinded. Matter of Town of Mamakating v Village of Bloomingburg, 2019 NY Slip Op 05732, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

, , , ,

HARDSHIP WAIVER TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE CORE PRESERVATION AREA OF THE LONG ISLAND CENTRAL PINES BARRENS PROPERLY DENIED, ACCOMPANYING ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED, SUA SPONTE, BY THE JUDGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the Article 78 petition for a hardship waiver to allow petitioner to build a single family residence on property within the core preservation area of the Long Island Central Pines Barrens was properly denied. However, the accompanying declaratory judgment action (alleging the denial of the waiver was an unconstitutional taking) should not have been summarily dismissed by the judge absent a motion for that relief:

… [C]ontrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Commission’s determination to deny its application for an extraordinary hardship waiver had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. In particular, the Commission rationally found, inter alia, that the alleged hardship was not the result of any unique circumstances peculiar to the subject property (see ECL 57-0121[10][a][i] …) and, in any event, that the alleged hardship was self-created (see ECL 57-0121[10][a][ii], [iii] …). The Commission also rationally found that the application did not satisfy the requirements of ECL 57-0121(10)(c) and reasonably distinguished the application from prior applications for which it granted an extraordinary hardship waiver … . …

“In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand” … . “The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment”… . “Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … . Matter of Armand Gustave, LLC v Pavacic, 2019 NY Slip Op 05125, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND EXPERT EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS DIVERTED WATER ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD WHICH FORMED A PATCH OF BLACK ICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s request to enter the Rizzetta defendants’ property to allow inspection and expert examination of the alleged diversion of water from the property onto a public road should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured riding his bicycle when he hit a patch of black ice, slipped and fell:

CPLR 3120(1)(ii) provides that a party may serve another party with notice “to permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession, custody or control of the party served for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, sampling, testing, photographing or recording by motion pictures or otherwise the property or any specifically designated object or operation thereon.” Motions seeking such discovery “are routinely granted when a central issue in the case is the condition of the real property under inspection” … . …

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion. A central issue in this litigation is the source of the water which allegedly caused the injury-producing ice condition. An owner of private land abutting a public roadway may be liable for injuries sustained from a fall on ice on the public roadway, if the “ice condition was caused and created by the artificial diversion of naturally flowing water from the private landowner’s property onto the public roadway” … . The plaintiff’s theory of the Rizzetta defendants’ liability is premised upon the Rizzetta defendants’ alleged diversion of water from their property onto the public roadway. Although the probative value of the inspection may be weakened by the passage of time since the accident occurred, such delay is not a basis for denying the plaintiff’s discovery request where, as here, the inspection may still aid the parties in preparation for trial … . Zupnick v City of New Rochelle, 2019 NY Slip Op 04754, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, , ,

THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF VARIANCES BY THE ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER DID NOT PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, UNDER THE CPLR THE RESPONDENT MUST PROVIDE THE TRANSCRIPT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking review of the zoning board’s denial of variances should not have been dismissed on the ground that petitioner did not provide a transcript of the proceedings. CPLR 7804 requires that the respondent provide the transcript:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the grounds that the petitioner had not provided “a copy of a transcript from the proceeding, . . . any of the submissions that he may have made in support of the requests, including the applications for any variances themselves” and had “also not provided an affidavit from a person with knowledge in support of [his] petition.”

CPLR 7804(d) permits, but does not require, the petitioner to submit affidavits or other written proof in support of the verified petition. Further, CPLR 7804(e) provides that the respondent, not the petitioner, “shall file with the answer a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings under consideration, unless such a transcript has already been filed with the clerk of the court.” Matter of D’Souza v Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, 2019 NY Slip Op 04381, Second Dept 6-5-10

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION SEEKING TO ENJOIN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME PLAINTIFFS CONTENDED WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE TOWN CODE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the doctrine of laches applied to plaintiffs’ action seeking to enjoin defendant’s construction of a house. Plaintiffs alleged the construction violated the Town Code:

” To establish laches, a party must show: (1) conduct by an offending party giving rise to the situation complained of, (2) delay by the complainant in asserting his or her claim for relief despite the opportunity to do so, (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the offending party that the complainant would assert his or her claim for relief, and (4) injury or prejudice to the offending party in the event that relief is accorded the complainant'” … . ” The mere lapse of time without a showing of prejudice will not sustain a defense of laches. In addition, there must be a change in circumstances making it inequitable to grant the relief sought'” … . “Moreover, as the effect of delay may be critical to an adverse party, delays of even less than one year have been sufficient to warrant the application of the defense” … . …

The plaintiffs commenced this action nearly three years after the building permit was first issued in May 2012 and after [plaintiff] Kverel withdrew his administrative appeal, two years after the parties entered into the stipulation, and more than six months after construction purportedly commenced in August 2014. Although the building permit was amended several times thereafter and as late as February 2015, the record demonstrates that the plaintiffs were aware as early as July 2012, when the subject property remained undeveloped and before the defendant purchased the subject property, of their claim that the defendant’s construction was in violation of the Town Code. Although the record unequivocally demonstrates that the plaintiffs were opposed to the defendant’s construction on the subject property, the plaintiffs did not seek administrative review by the ZBA or injunctive relief until they commenced this action. Kverel v Silverman, 2019 NY Slip Op 04152, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

,

CONVERSION OF A HISTORIC LOWER MANHATTAN LANDMARK, A RARE CLOCK AND CLOCK TOWER, TO A LUXURY APARTMENT WAS PROPERLY APPROVED BY THE NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC)  properly approved the redevelopment of 346 Broadway, a historic building in Lower Manhattan that the LPC had previously designated as a landmark. The redevelopment entailed conversion of an interior landmark (a clock) to a luxury apartment:

In its initial designation report, the LPC noted several of the building’s unique features. The exterior of the “palazzo-like tower,” constructed in “the neo-Italian Renaissance style,” was largely built with “white Tuckahoe marble.” The “interiors” were also “designed using the finest craftmanship and lavish materials” including “marble, bronze, [and] mahogany.” Among the interior spaces designated were the former “Banking Hall,” a “grand and boldly scaled neo-Classical room” with “monumental freestanding Corinthian columns, and “[t]he clock tower” which housed a “No. 4 Striking Tower Clock”—a mechanical clock driven “by a thousand pound weight” which “strikes the hours” with a hammer and a “5000 pound bell.” The clock was manufactured by E. Howard Watch & Clock Company and “was specially equipped with a double three-legged gravity escapement”—a feature, petitioners claim, is shared by only one other tower clock: the clock housed by Elizabeth Tower (also home to the bell known as Big Ben) in London. In total, the LPC landmarked 20,000 square feet out of the building’s total interior space of 420,000 square feet. * * *

… [T]the developer intended to keep the clock running electrically. …

…  [T]he LPC found that the developer’s plan would have “the main lobby, stair hall, clock tower rooms and banking hall . . . fully restored.” Additionally, it would “allow accessibility by the public to the lobby and former banking hall.” The LPC also found that “the clock mechanism and faces will be retained, thereby preserving these significant features.” In sum, the LPC found that “the proposed restorative work will return . . . the interior closer to [its] original appearance, and will aid in [its] long-term preservation.”

FROM JUDGE RIVERA’S DISSENT:

Notwithstanding the historical significance of the clock to the City, the LPC approved the building owner’s request to convert this interior landmark into a luxury apartment. The former is a rare horological masterpiece; the latter is a typical, now-commonplace, development for the wealthy by the wealthy. Although the LPC has great latitude to decide whether to approve an alteration to an interior landmark, it cannot approve an alteration that, by its very nature, amounts to a de facto rescission of a landmark designation. So, the question is, when is an interior landmark no longer an interior landmark? The answer is contained in the plain language of the Landmarks Preservation Law, which defines an interior landmark as accessible to the public for the people’s benefit and welfare. Transforming an interior landmark into a private residence such that it is completely closed off from the public, annuls its designation and is inconsistent with the purpose of the Landmarks Preservation Law. Matter of Save America’s Clocks, Inc. v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 02385, CtApp 3-28-19

 

, ,

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (ZBA) HAS EXCLUSIVELY APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DECIDE A MATTER THAT HAS NOT FIRST BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A DECISION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, ALTHOUGH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WAS VIOLATED, THE VIOLATION WAS NOT A BASIS FOR ANNULMENT OF THE ZBA DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined (1) the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) does not have jurisdiction absent a determination of an administrative official which is appealed; and (2) although the Open Meetings Law was violated, the violation did not warrant annulment of the ZBA’s determination on that ground. The petitioner had sought an interpretation of the local zoning law to determine whether a particular use of the land was permitted. Because no administrative official had ruled on that issue, the ZBA did not have authority to make a determination and the determination was properly annulled on that ground:

Absent a determination of the Building Inspector or other administrative official charged with the enforcement of the local zoning law, the Zoning Board of Appeals was without jurisdiction to consider Chestnut Ridge Associates’ application for an interpretation of the local zoning law to determine if the plaintiffs/petitioners’ landscaping business on certain premises was a permitted use in a laboratory office-zoned district … . Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s annulment of the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals on that basis. …

… [T]he record supports a finding that the Zoning Board of Appeals violated the Open Meetings Law with regard to a workshop meeting held on January 17, 2012, by failing to give proper notice of the meeting … . However, the plaintiffs/petitioners failed to establish good cause to annul the Board’s determination on that ground, as the improperly noticed meeting was open to the public and the determination at issue was adopted at a publicized, public meeting, after a series of public meetings with regard thereto had previously been held … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have annulled the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the ground that the Open Meetings Law had been violated, and should not have awarded the plaintiffs/petitioners costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Public Officers Law § 107(2) based on that violation … . Chestnut Ridge Assoc., LLC v 30 Sephar Lane, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01388, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

, , ,

LOCAL LAW WHICH HAD BEEN DECLARED VOID COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER PETITIONER’S USE OF THE LAND FOR MINING WAS A VALID PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING USE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that a local law which had been declared void could not be the basis for determining whether the petitioner’s use of the property for mining was a valid preexisting nonconforming use. Once the local law had been declared void the prior law went back into effect. That law was not changed until 2015. So the 2015 law is the proper basis for determining whether the property is subject to a valid preexisting nonconforming use:

Central to petitioner’s contention is the general premise that the judicial nullification and voidance of an ordinance revives, by operation of law, the prior ordinance in effect before the null and void law was adopted … . Even more fundamental, a voided law can have no lasting effect … . To that end, “a void thing is no thing. It changes nothing and does nothing. It has no power to coerce or release. It has no effect whatever. In the eye of the law it is merely a blank, the same as if the types had not reached the paper”… . Therefore, inasmuch as an annulled law can have no lingering effect, petitioner is entitled to have its nonconforming use rights evaluated as of the effective date of the 2015 ordinance, unless, of course, that ordinance is also annulled prior to any such determination … . To hold otherwise would not only give the annulled Local Law No. 2 complete effect, i.e., render mining a nonconforming use in petitioner’s zoning district as of the date of the illegally-enacted law, but it would incentivize municipalities to rush to enact local laws with any number of infirmities, including SEQRA violations. Matter of Cobleskill Stone Prods., Inc. v Town of Schoharie, 2019 NY Slip Op 01272, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

​

,

CEMETERY’S APPLICATION FOR A USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A CREMATORY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BY THE ZONING BOARD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had properly annulled the zoning board’s denial a cemetery’s application for a use variance to allow the construction of a crematory:

“To qualify for a use variance premised upon unnecessary hardship there must be a showing that (1) the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for permitted purposes as currently zoned, (2) the hardship resulted from unique characteristics of the property, (3) the proposed use would not alter the character of the neighborhood, and (4) the alleged hardship was not self-created” … .

With regard to the first element, “[i]t is well settled that a landowner who seeks a use variance must demonstrate factually, by dollars and cents proof, an inability to realize a reasonable return under existing permissible uses'” … . … [T]here was no rational basis for the Board’s finding that the Cemetery was not experiencing a financial hardship.

As to the third element, the Board improperly determined that the 1,800-square-foot crematory would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The unrebutted evidence demonstrated that the crematory would be shielded from view, would be odorless and not emit visible smoke, and had passed all necessary emissions and air quality testing. Matter of White Plains Rural Cemetery Assn. v City of White Plains, 2019 NY Slip Op 00606, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

, ,

REQUEST WAS PROPERLY DEEMED AN APPLICATION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE, NOT A USE VARIANCE, AND WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined: (1) RAM’s request for permission to build a hotel was a request for an area variance, not a use variance; (2) the statutory factors for granting a use variance were considered by the zoning board; (3) the board complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and (4) the area variance was properly granted:

Pursuant to Town Law § 267(1)(b), an area variance is defined as the “authorization by the zoning board of appeals for the use of land in a manner which is not allowed by the dimensional or physical requirements of the applicable zoning regulations” … . One aspect of RAM’s request for a variance related to a provision of the Town’s Zoning Law which required that a hotel have its “principal frontage” on a state or county highway … . We agree with the ZBA and the Supreme Court that the “principal frontage” requirement is a “physical requirement,” rather than a use restriction, and that RAM’s application is thus properly regarded as one for an area variance. We note that the other aspect of RAM’s application for an area variance related to the height of the roof of the proposed hotel, and there is no dispute that that aspect of RAM’s application was properly categorized as a request for an area variance. …

In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a zoning board must 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 … . Town Law § 267-b(3)(b) provides that in making its determination, the zoning board shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination the board shall 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. In applying the balancing test set forth in Town Law § 267-b(3)(b), a zoning board need not justify its determination with supporting evidence with respect to each of the five statutory factors as long as its ultimate determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational … . Matter of Route 17K Real Estate, LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Newburgh, 2019 NY Slip Op 00605, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

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