You are here: / Zoning

Statutory Balancing Test Properly Applied In Denial of Area Variance Re: Lot-Width

The Second Department determined the zoning board’s denial of an area variance re: lot-width had a rational basis and should not have been disturbed by Supreme Court. The Second Department explained how the zoning board is to apply the five statutory factors: “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 if the variance is granted (see Town Law § 267-b[3][b]…). The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors, as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational … . … The granting of the variances would have resulted in the creation of the most nonconforming lot in a unique neighborhood … , the requested variances were substantial … , and the hardship was self-created… .  Matter of Traendly v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southold, 2015 NY Slip Op 03548, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

, ,

Town Board Is Not a Proper Party In an Action Seeking Review of a Determination Made by the Town’s Zoning Board

The Second Department noted that the Town Board is not a proper party to an action seeking review of a determination by the town’s Zoning Board.  The Zoning Board “is an independent, quasi-judicial, administrative arm of the Town … . The Town Board … had no jurisdiction to hear or determine the subject application and, in fact, neither heard nor determined it.” Matter of TAC Peek Equities, Ltd. v Town of Putnam Val. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 03547, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

,

Denial of Special Use Permit Reversed As Arbitrary and Capricious/Difference Between Special Use Permit and Use Variance Explained

The Second Department determined that the denial of 7-Eleven’s petition for a special exception (also referred to as a special use permit) for operation of a convenience store was arbitrary and capricious.  The court explained the difference between a special use permit and a use variance. A special use permit gives a property owner permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance but not necessarily allowed as of right. A use variance gives the owner permission to use the property in a manner inconsistent with the zoning ordinance.  The proof burden is much lighter for a special use permit, as opposed to a use variance.  The proponent of a special use permit need only show compliance with legislatively imposed conditions, while the proponent of a use variance must show undue hardship in complying with the ordinance. Here no evidence was presented to support the denial of the special use permit:

A special exception, commonly known as a special use permit, “gives [a property owner] permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, although not necessarily allowed as of right” … . By contrast, a use variance gives a property owner permission to use the property in a manner inconsistent with a local zoning ordinance. “The significance of this distinction is that the inclusion of the permitted use in the ordinance is tantamount to a legislative finding that the permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood” … . Accordingly, “the burden of proof on an owner seeking a special exception is lighter than that on an owner seeking a [use] variance, the former only being required to show compliance with any legislatively imposed conditions on an otherwise permitted use, while the latter must show an undue hardship in complying with the ordinance” … . Matter of 7-Eleven, Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Mineola, 2015 NY Slip Op 03544, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

,

Court’s Review Powers Re: a Zoning Board’s Interpretation of an Ordinance Explained—Reviewing Court Need Not Defer to the Board’s Ruling on a Purely Legal Issue/Here Zoning Board Properly Interpreted the Ordinance—Criteria Explained

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) had properly found that a “tire sales and automotive repair” business was a “conditional use,” not a “permitted use,” within the meaning of the Village Code. A “conditional use” requires a conditional use permit and site plan approval.  The court explained its review powers in this context and the statutory interpretation criteria it applied. The reviewing court need not defer to the agency’s ruling on a purely legal question (here the meaning of the applicable code provisions). The ordinance must be read as a whole and no language should be rendered superfluous:

” 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'” … . “[Z]oning restrictions, being in derogation of common-law property rights, should be strictly construed, and any ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the property owner” … .

A zoning board’s interpretation of its zoning ordinance is generally entitled to great deference … . However, where, as here, “the issue involves pure legal interpretation of statutory terms, deference is not required” … . Pursuant to our independent review of the law, we conclude that the ZBA’s determination complied with applicable legal principles … .

Under the Zoning Code, uses permitted as of right (hereinafter permitted uses) and conditional uses are set forth in accompanying zoning schedules. The uses listed in column A of the applicable schedules “are permitted by right,” while the uses listed in column C “are permitted only on approval of the Planning Board, and are conditioned to [sic] special requirements that may be imposed to ensure compatibility with neighboring uses” (Code of the Village of Monroe § 200-15[B]). Zoning Schedule I-F is applicable to the GB District. The permitted uses enumerated in column A of the Table of Use Requirements of Zoning Schedule I-F include, among others, “retail sales” (Item 17) and “repair service, including automotive” (Item 16). However, column C lists “tire sales and service” (Item 4) among the conditional uses. Section 200-3 of the Code of the Village of Monroe provides that “[i]n the event of conflict in the terminology of any section or part thereof of this chapter, the more restrictive provisions shall control” … .

“A statute such as a zoning ordinance must be construed as a whole, reading all of its parts together, all of which should be harmonized to ascertain legislative intent, and it should be given its plain meaning, avoiding a construction that renders superfluous any language in the ordinance” … . Matter of Robert E. Havell Revocable Trust v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Monroe, 2015 NY Slip Op 03369, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

, ,

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

 

,

Denial of Area Variance In the Absence of Evidence of a Detrimental Effect on the Community Was Arbitrary and Capricious

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly held that the zoning board of appeals’ denial of area variances was arbitrary and capricious.  The court noted that similar variances had been granted to other parties and there was no evidence before the board that the variances would have an undesirable effect on the character of the community, adversely affect the physical and environmental conditions, or otherwise result in a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood:

In determining whether to grant an area variance, a zoning board must consider “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” … . The zoning board should also consider “(i) 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; (ii) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (iii) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (iv) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (v) 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” (General City Law § 81-b[4][b]). In applying the statutory balancing test for granting area variances, a zoning board is “not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence with respect to each of the five factors, so long as its ultimate determination balancing the relevant considerations was rational”… . Matter of L & M Graziose, LLP v City of Glen Cove Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2nd Dept 4-8-15

 

,

Application for Variance Properly Denied—Courts’ Review Powers Re: Actions of Zoning Board Explained

The Fourth Department determined the zoning board properly denied the petitioner’s application for a variance and explained the courts’ review powers in this context:

It is well settled that the determination whether to grant or deny an application for an area variance is committed to the broad discretion of the applicable local zoning board … . Consequently, when reviewing the denial of an application for an area variance, “[j]udicial review [of such a determination] is . . . limited to the issue whether the action taken by the [board] was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion’ . . . [, and the b]oard’s determination should therefore be sustained so long as it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence’ ” … . A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of a local zoning board …, “even if there is substantial evidence supporting a contrary determination” … .

Here, the record establishes that respondent reviewed the appropriate statutory factors in making its determination (see General City Law § 81-b [4] [b]), and concluded that the application should be denied because, inter alia, the variances would cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, the variances are substantial, and petitioners’ hardship is self-created (see § 81-b [4] [b] [i], [iii], [v]). Matter of People, Inc. v City of Tonawanda Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 02257, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

, ,

Engineer/Engineering Firm Did Not Have Standing to Contest Variance

The Third Department determined the petitioner, Klein, an engineer who claimed to be representing neighbors opposed to a variance granted by the town zoning board, did not have standing to contest the variance:

The Town Code permits appeals by “any person aggrieved” by, among other things, the zoning administrator’s decisions (Code of the Town of Queensbury § 179-14-040 [C]). As the Town Code does not define the quoted phrase, it must be interpreted according to its plain meaning … . This language seems to be taken directly from Town Law § 267-a (4). This same phrase in that statute has been consistently interpreted to mean a person who “has sustained special damage, different in kind and degree from the community generally” … . Even without establishing an injury in fact, a person is presumed to have standing if he or she falls within the statute’s zone of interests and his or her property is sufficiently proximate to the property at issue … .

The notice of appeal to the ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals] listed Klein’s engineering firm as the appellant and Klein as the appellant’s agent. Klein and his firm did not exhibit any specialized harm and do not own property near the Kitchens’ property. Thus, Klein does not have standing in his individual capacity or as an agent for his firm. Klein asserts that at the public hearings and in letters he identified himself as appearing on behalf of neighbors. While this is true, at no point up until the day before the hearing on his appeal did he identify who his clients were. The other petitioners involved in this appeal, who later claimed that Klein was their agent, were not listed on the notice of appeal and did not file a formal designation form naming him as their agent — as the Town generally requires — prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations for appealing an administrative determination. Under the circumstances, the ZBA did not err in finding that Klein was not a duly authorized agent of an aggrieved party during the requisite limitations period for the appeal and was not himself aggrieved, so he had no standing … . Matter of Fund for Lake George, Inc. v Town of Queensbury Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 518831, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

Failure to Obtain a Special Use Permit Does Not Preclude, as a Matter of Law, the Establishment of a Vested Right to a Nonconforming Use

The Third Department determined there were questions of fact re: whether the petitioner, the owner of a quarry, had a vested right to mine property it had purchased adjacent to the quarry, which had been in operation since the 1890’s.  The court held that the petitioner’s failure to obtain a special permit for the newly-acquired property did not preclude, as a matter of law, the establishment of prior nonconforming use rights:

The Court of Appeals has repeatedly rejected the notion that “permits are a prerequisite to establishing prior nonconforming use rights” … . Thus, although a special permit was required for mining operations between 1975 and 2005, petitioner’s failure to obtain one does not, as a matter of law, preclude it from establishing that it has a vested right to mine on its property notwithstanding a current or future prohibitive zoning ordinance … . Matter of Cobleskill Stone Prods., Inc. v Town of Schoharie, 2015 NY Slip Op 01851, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

Current Builder Acquired a Vested Right to Variances Issued to Original Builder

The Second Department determined the builder had a vested right in variances issued 25 years before to the original builder.  The “vested right” concept was explained as follows:

Vested rights accrue where the owner does substantial construction and incurs substantial expense, in good-faith reliance on a permit … . “Although many cases speak in terms of reliance on permits, a right may vest in certain situations when subdivisions’ have been given a final grant of approval'” … . An owner may acquire vested rights to a site where the site is but a part of a single project and substantial construction had been commenced and substantial expenditures made in connection with other phases of the integrated project which also benefitted or bore some connection to the affected site, such as infrastructure for the entire project … . Where vested rights accrue, a successor-in-interest succeeds to the vested rights … .

Here, the project was approved as an integrated project. [The builder] and its predecessors completed substantial construction of project-wide infrastructure to the benefit of the contemplated midrises and incurred substantial expenditures in good-faith reliance on the continuing validity of the variances. [The builder] thus accrued a vested right to complete construction of the midrises in accordance with the approved site plan and variances … . Matter of Waterways Dev. Corp. v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 01808, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

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