You are here: / Land Use
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the action seeking a declaration whether a proposed development was within the jurisdiction of the planning board was premature. Although the board found it had jurisdiction, it also indicated the landowner could obtain a hardship exemption which would allow development:

​

Here, the Planning Commission’s initial finding that the proposed subdivision constituted “development” within the meaning of the Act (see Environmental Conservation Law § 57-0107[13]; see also Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan § 4.3.5) did not constitute a final determination prohibiting the petitioners from subdividing the property in accordance with their proposal. As the Planning Commission’s determination indicated, the petitioners may still obtain a hardship exemption, which would render the proposed residential use of the property authorized … . Since the petitioners failed to adequately allege that they suffered an actual concrete injury, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as premature … . Matter of Equine Facility, LLC v Pavacic, 2017 NY Slip Op 08371, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

ZONING (ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RIPENESS, ZONING, ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (ZONING,  (ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town planning board’s approval of the development of land should be annulled. The land included wetlands which required an investigation and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and those requirements had not been met. The petitioners’ request for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) should have been granted:

​

“A lead agency’s determination whether to require a SEIS . . . is discretionary” … . “The lead agency may require a supplemental EIS, limited to the specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS that arise from: (a) changes proposed for the project; (b) newly discovered information; or (c) a change in circumstances related to the project” … . “The decision to prepare a SEIS as a result of newly discovered information must be based upon . . . (a) the importance and relevance of the information; and (b) the present state of the information in the EIS'” … . The limitations that apply to a court’s review of an agency’s SEQRA determination, that is, only to ascertain whether the agency took a hard look at the relevant areas of environmental concern and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination, also apply to the agency’s determination regarding whether a SEIS is needed, and the court may no more substitute its judgment on this point than it may on other aspects of agency decision-making … .

Here, the petitioners contend that a SEIS is needed because Scenic never obtained a jurisdictional determination from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter ACOE) validating  [the developer’s] delineation of wetlands on the subject property. They argue that, prior to issuing the determinations challenged on appeal, the Planning Board was presented with critical new evidence demonstrating that no jurisdictional determination had been issued by the ACOE for the subject property. The petitioners are correct. Matter of Shapiro v Planning Bd. of the Town of Ramapo, 2017 NY Slip Op 07734, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA)  (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/WETLANDS (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, WETLANDS, PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

TRAFFIC CONCERNS JUSTIFIED THE ZONING BOARD’S RESTRICTIONS ON A RESTAURANT’S HOURS OF OPERATION AND REQUIREMENT FOR VALET PARKING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the zoning board of appeals’ (ZBA’s) restrictions on the hours of operation of petitioner’s restaurant, as well as the requirement for valey parking, were appropriate. The hours coincided with the availability of off-street parking:

​

“A zoning board may, where appropriate, impose reasonable conditions and restrictions as are directly related to and incidental to the proposed use of the property, and aimed at minimizing the adverse impact to an area that might result from the grant of a variance or special permit”… . “However, if a zoning board imposes unreasonable or improper conditions, those conditions may be annulled although the variance is upheld'” … .

Here, the ZBA’s conditions requiring valet parking and limiting the petitioner’s hours of operation to coincide with the hours of access to the 40 off-street parking spaces granted in the license agreement were proper because the conditions related directly to the use of the land and were intended to protect the neighboring commercial properties from the potential adverse effects of the petitioner’s operation, such as the anticipated increase in traffic congestion and parking problems… ” The need to alleviate traffic congestion by requiring adequate parking facilities’ is a legitimate consideration for a zoning board of appeals” … .

… The ZBA was entitled to rely on the testimony of the local store owners, since “a zoning board’s reliance upon specific, detailed testimony of neighbors based on personal knowledge does not render a variance determination the product of generalized and conclusory community opposition”… . Their testimony was supported by the observation of the petitioner’s own expert that there is a great demand for parking in the area of the subject restaurant. Members of the ZBA were also entitled to rely on their own personal knowledge of the area in reaching their decision … . Matter of Bonefish Grill, LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Vil. of Rockville Ctr., 2017 NY Slip Op 06643, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

 

ZONING (TRAFFIC CONCERNS JUSTIFIED THE ZONING BOARD’S RESTRICTIONS ON A RESTAURANT’S HOURS OF OPERATION AND REQUIREMENT FOR VALET PARKING (FOURTH DEPT))/VARIANCES (CONDITIONS, TRAFFIC CONCERNS JUSTIFIED THE ZONING BOARD’S RESTRICTIONS ON A RESTAURANT’S HOURS OF OPERATION AND REQUIREMENT FOR VALET PARKING (FOURTH DEPT))/PARKING (ZONING, TRAFFIC CONCERNS JUSTIFIED THE ZONING BOARD’S RESTRICTIONS ON A RESTAURANT’S HOURS OF OPERATION AND REQUIREMENT FOR VALET PARKING (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC (ZONING, TRAFFIC CONCERNS JUSTIFIED THE ZONING BOARD’S RESTRICTIONS ON A RESTAURANT’S HOURS OF OPERATION AND REQUIREMENT FOR VALET PARKING (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN ANOTHER’S DEED PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, in affirming the dismissal of the causes of action, explained when a resident can bring a private action to enforce a zoning ordinance and restrictive covenants in another’s deed:

​

The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the plaintiff’s third cause of action, which was to enjoin alleged violations of the Code of the Town of Islip and restrictive covenants and to recover damages incidental to the alleged violations, as the plaintiff lacks standing to bring such a cause of action. Generally, to maintain a private action at common law to enjoin a zoning violation, a plaintiff must establish that he or she has standing to do so by demonstrating that special damages were sustained due to the defendant’s activities. To establish special damages, it is necessary to show that there is some depreciation in the value of the premises as real property arising from the forbidden use… . The plaintiff here failed to show that there was a depreciation of the character of the immediate neighborhood, or a depreciation in the value of her premises.

Furthermore, as stated previously, the plaintiff lacks standing to enforce restrictive covenants regarding the defendants’ property. The language in the deed from the original grantor indicates that the covenants were not imposed for the benefit of the owner of neighboring land. Therefore, the plaintiff may not enforce the covenants as a third-party beneficiary … .. Moreover, these covenants were not part of a common development scheme created for the benefit of all property owners within the subject development … . Wheeler v Del Duca, 2017 NY Slip Op 05116, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

 

ZONING (CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN ANOTHER’S DEED PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/REAL PROPERTY (CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN ANOTHER’S DEED PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN ANOTHER’S DEED PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/DEEDS (CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN ANOTHER’S DEED PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

, , ,

WATER DISTRICT’S CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY TANK WAS IMMUNE FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE VILLAGE CODE AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly concluded the Water District’s planned replacement of a drinking water supply tank was immune from the village code and did not trigger the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA):

​

In Matter of County of Monroe (City of Rochester) (72 NY2d 338), the Court of Appeals addressed the applicability of local zoning laws where a conflict exists between two governmental entities. The Court therein articulated “a balancing of public interests” test which requires the consideration of various factors in order to determine whether an entity should be granted immunity from local zoning requirements … . These factors include “the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact upon legitimate local interests” … .

Here, the Village failed to set forth any basis for its contention that the application of the Monroe balancing test is in the exclusive province of the Village, or host entity. In fact, the Court of Appeals did not specify the entity initially responsible for evaluating the competing interests … . Further, the Supreme Court properly employed the “balancing of public interests” test and correctly determined that the proposed construction plan is immune from the Village’s local laws … .

The Supreme Court also properly found, in effect, that the Water District’s determination that the proposed construction plan was for a “replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind” (6 NYCRR 617.5[c][2]) and, thus, was a Type II action under SEQRA that presumptively did not have a significant impact upon the environment and did not require the preparation and circulation of an environmental impact statement, was not irrational, arbitrary or capricious, affected by error of law, or an abuse of discretion … . Incorporated Vil. of Munsey Park v Manhasset-Lakeville Water Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 03934, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

​

ZONING (WATER DISTRICT’S CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY TANK WAS IMMUNE FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE VILLAGE CODE AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (REPLACEMENT WATER TANK, WATER DISTRICT’S CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY TANK WAS IMMUNE FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE VILLAGE CODE AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT)/MONROE BALANCING TEST (REPLACEMENT WATER TANK, WATER DISTRICT’S CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY TANK WAS IMMUNE FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE VILLAGE CODE AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA)  (REPLACEMENT WATER TANK, WATER DISTRICT’S CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY TANK WAS IMMUNE FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE VILLAGE CODE AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT)/WATER TANKS (WATER DISTRICT’S CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY TANK WAS IMMUNE FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE VILLAGE CODE AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT)/MUNICIPAL LAW  (WATER DISTRICT’S CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY TANK WAS IMMUNE FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE VILLAGE CODE AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT)

, ,

PARTIES HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED FOR FAILURE TO SET OUT THE UNDERLYING REASONING.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the negative declaration by the City of Rochester Director of Planning and Zoning under the State Environmental Quality Review Act [SEQRA] should have been annulled. The Fourth Department first held that the parties had standing to contest the negative declaration because of their proximity to the subject construction site. In the face of the acknowledged contamination of the soil at the site, the negative declaration did not set forth or document the underlying reasoning:

We … agree with petitioners that the negative declaration did not contain a ” reasoned elaboration’ of the basis for [the] determination” … . “It is well settled that SEQRA’s procedural mechanisms mandate strict compliance, and anything less will result in annulment of the lead agency’s determination of significance” … . The lead agency must “set forth its determination of significance in a written form containing a reasoned elaboration and providing reference to any supporting documentation” … . The purpose of that regulation “is to focus and facilitate judicial review and . . . to provide affected landowners and residents with a clear, written explanation of the lead agency’s reasoning at the time the negative declaration is made” … . Here, despite the undisputed presence of preexisting soil contamination on the project site, the negative declaration set forth no findings whatsoever with respect to that contamination. The document containing the purported reasoning for the lead agency’s determination of significance, which was prepared subsequent to the issuance of the negative declaration, does not fulfill the statutory mandate … . Contrary to respondents’ contention, the developer’s promise to remediate the contamination before proceeding with construction did not absolve the lead agency from its obligations under SEQRA … . Matter of Rochester Eastside Residents for Appropriate Dev., Inc. v City of Rochester, 2017 NY Slip Op 03665, 4th Dept 5-5-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PARTIES HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED FOR FAILURE TO SET OUT THE UNDERLYING REASONING)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (PARTIES HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED FOR FAILURE TO SET OUT THE UNDERLYING REASONING)/ZONING (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, PARTIES HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED FOR FAILURE TO SET OUT THE UNDERLYING REASONING)/NEGATIVE DECLARATION (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, PARTIES HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED FOR FAILURE TO SET OUT THE UNDERLYING REASONING)

,

RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ZONING BOARD IMPROPERLY BOWED TO THE OBJECTIONS BY TWO NEIGHBORS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the record did not support the zoning board of appeals’ (ZBA’s) denial of a special use permit for keeping dogs on petitioner’s property. The Third Department found the only competent evidence of the noise level was petitioner’s scientific measurement and the neighbors’ complaints about the noise were not a proper basis for denial of the permit:

​

The record shows that the ZBA advised petitioner that the noise from her property should not exceed 80 decibels … . At the public hearing, petitioner explained that she was certified as a nurse to take sound readings and had done so at the property line over a period of approximately one month at different intervals of the day. She claimed that the noise from her property had not exceeded 70 decibels … . She also offered at least two proposals to address the concerns of the neighbors regarding any noise issue. She proposed a six-foot-high stockade fence and moving the outside pens so that they would be blocked by a building. The nearest neighbor, located across the road from petitioner’s property, played a recording at the public hearing that he claimed was a recording that he made of noise emanating from petitioner’s property. He also claimed that the noise was cited by a prospective purchaser of his property … . Another neighbor, who has a horse training and boarding business approximately 500 feet from petitioner’s property, claimed that some of her customers expressed concerns about the noise from petitioner’s property, and she allegedly provided copies of emails from those customers. …

In its determination, the ZBA did not identify any specific shortcomings in petitioner’s mitigation measures, but summarily determined that petitioner had not offered measures that would sufficiently mitigate the dog noise impact from her business. We view this determination of the ZBA to be without sufficient support in the record. Petitioner offered scientific measurement of the noise level and there was no other objective measure of the noise offered at the public hearing. The neighbor’s recording of the noise is subject to an unreliable interpretation of its level based upon the ability to control the volume of the recording, and reliance on the recording would be unreasonable. Absent reliable proof that rebuts petitioner’s offer of her measurement of the sound level and her offer of measures to address any noise concerns, there is no basis in the record to determine that petitioner did not meet the conditions imposed by the Land Use Law, and it appears that the ZBA bowed to generalized objections from two neighbors … . Matter of Blanchfield v Hoosick, 2017 NY Slip Op 03097, 3rd Dept 4-20-17

 

ZONING (RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ZONING BOARD IMPROPERLY BOWED TO THE OBJECTIONS BY TWO NEIGHBORS)/SPECIAL USE PERMITS (RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ZONING BOARD IMPROPERLY BOWED TO THE OBJECTIONS BY TWO NEIGHBORS)/NEIGHBOR OBJECTIONS (ZONING, RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ZONING BOARD IMPROPERLY BOWED TO THE OBJECTIONS BY TWO NEIGHBORS)

,

DENIAL OF VARIANCES FOR BILLBOARDS UPHELD, ANY HARDSHIP DEEMED SELF-CREATED.

The Fourth Department determined the ruling of the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) was properly upheld by Supreme Court. Petitioner-trust owns a landlocked undeveloped parcel. An offer to buy the parcel was contingent on the grant of variances allowing off-site billboards visible from the adjacent highway. The town code allows only on-site billboards. The ZBA denied the variances.

We reject petitioners’ contention that the ZBA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in determining that they failed to establish the factors constituting unnecessary hardship required for the issuance of the use variances (see Town Law § 267-b [2] [b]). The court properly determined, upon review of the record as a whole, including the evidence submitted to the ZBA, the findings and conclusions articulated by the ZBA during the hearing, and its subsequent letter decision … , that there is substantial evidence supporting the ZBA’s determination that the hardship was self-created (see § 267-b [2] [b] [4]). * * * … [T]he Trust possesses the same unused, oddly-shaped, difficult-to-develop property that [its predecessor] purchased, and although the purchase may now be viewed as a poor investment, courts are not responsible for “guarantee[ing] the investments of careless land buyers” … .

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the court properly concluded that there is substantial evidence supporting the ZBA’s determination that the billboards would have a negative and adverse effect upon the character of the neighborhood inasmuch as the relevant area could not aesthetically support additional signs … . Matter of Expressview Dev., Inc. v Town of Gates Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2017 NY Slip Op 00874, 4th Dept 2-3-17

ZONING (DENIAL OF VARIANCES FOR BILLBOARDS UPHELD, ANY HARDSHIP DEEMED SELF-CREATED)/VARIANCES (ZONING, DENIAL OF VARIANCES FOR BILLBOARDS UPHELD, ANY HARDSHIP DEEMED SELF-CREATED)/BILLBOARDS (ZONING, DENIAL OF VARIANCES FOR BILLBOARDS UPHELD, ANY HARDSHIP DEEMED SELF-CREATED)

,

DETERMINATION ALLOWING USE OF RESIDENTIAL STREETS TO ACCESS A CLAY MINING OPERATION REVERSED, NO DEMONSTRATION PROPERTY WAS WORTHLESS UNDER EXISTING ZONING.

The Fourth Department, reversing the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) and Supreme Court, held that the ZBA’s determination allowing respondent Seneca Meadows Inc (SMI) to use residential streets to access a clay mining operation was irrational and unreasonable. SMI did not demonstrate that no reasonable return may be obtained from the property under existing zoning:

SMI’s proposed clay mine is located within its agriculturally zoned parcel, but it is bordered by its commercially and residentially zoned parcels that provide access to public roads. The Zoning Law of the Town of Waterloo prohibits commercial excavation operations in residential districts. Nevertheless, the ZBA upheld [the code enforcement officer’s] determination that the access road can cross the residential district because the agricultural portion of the property is landlocked. …

The ZBA’s and the court’s reliance on our determination in Matter of Passucci v Town of W. Seneca (151 AD2d 984) is misplaced. In that case, similar to this case, the commercially zoned portion of the petitioner’s property was landlocked, and the only access was over the residentially zoned portion of the property (id. at 984). In that case, however, the Town’s ordinance prohibited the petitioner from using the residential portion of his premises to access his commercial portion, and thus enforcing the zoning restriction would be unconstitutionally applied inasmuch as it “would prevent [the petitioner] from making any use of the property and would destroy its economic value” (id. …). SMI has failed to carry its “heavy burden of establishing that no reasonable return may be obtained from the property under the existing zoning” … . Matter of Lemmon v Seneca Meadows, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00798, 4th Dept 2-3-17

 

ZONING (DETERMINATION ALLOWING USE OF RESIDENTIAL STREETS TO ACCESS A CLAY MINING OPERATION REVERSED, NO DEMONSTRATION PROPERTY WAS WORTHLESS UNDER EXISTING ZONING)

,

USE OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR WEDDINGS, RECEPTIONS AND OTHER EVENTS VIOLATED THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH ALLOWED “ACCESSORY USE.”

The Third Department determined the use of a single family residence (called Highland Castle) for weddings, receptions and other events constituted a violation of the zoning ordinance, which allowed “accessory use” of residential property:

The ZBA [zoning board of appeals] found that, given the manner in which petitioner utilized and marketed Highlands Castle as a venue for weddings and other large social gatherings, the challenged use was neither subordinate nor customarily incidental to the primary single-family residential use of the property. On this record, we cannot say that such determination is either irrational or unreasonable. Petitioner insists that Highlands Castle is held out merely for residential rental use, yet the record belies such a claim. In offering Highlands Castle for rent, petitioner emphasized its availability for weddings, large parties and other social receptions. Notably, the property was marketed as available on a daily or even a “half-day” basis and was advertised upon a pricing structure specific to the type of event that may be of interest to the consumer and, in some instances, to the number of individuals that will be attending. The marketing of Highlands Castle thus evinces a clear intent to target a rental audience that sought more than just residential use of the property and, indeed, no evidence was presented that Highlands Castle had ever been rented out for use as a single-family residence. To the contrary, the evidence shows that Highlands Castle was rented eight times over the course of a roughly two-year period for large-scale events — including three weddings and an American Bar Association function. Further, given that the property is advertised for rent on a year-round basis without restriction as to availability, nothing prevents its regular use as an event venue on a more frequent basis than that which has previously occurred. Matter of Lavender v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of The Town of Bolton, 2016 NY Slip Op 05599, 3rd Dept 7-21-16

ZONING (USE OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR WEDDINGS, RECEPTIONS AND OTHER EVENTS VIOLATED THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH ALLOWED “ACCESSORY USE”)

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