You are here: / Zoning
,

Variance Should Not Have Been Granted to Homeowner Who Built Swimming Pool In Violation of Set-Back Requirements

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s annulment of a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) determination that a variance should not be granted to a homeowner who, without a permit, constructed a swimming pool in violation of a rear-yard setback:

In deciding whether to grant an application for an area variance, the Board “is required to engage in a balancing test that weighs the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community” … . The Board must consider whether (1) an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will result by the granting of the area variance, (2) the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than an area variance, (3) the requested area variance is substantial, (4) the proposed variance will adversely impact the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood if it is granted, and (5) the alleged difficulty was self-created (see Town Law § 267-b[3][b]). * * *

Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the ZBA’s determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. The evidence before the ZBA supported its conclusions that granting the requested variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, the variance was substantial, and any hardship was self-created (see Town Law § 267-b[3][b]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the ZBA’s granting of two prior applications seeking, inter alia, area variances for rear-yard setbacks of in-ground swimming pools, did not constitute a precedent from which the ZBA was required to explain a departure, because the two prior applications, inter alia, involved lots that were not near the subject property and were located in different zoning districts. Thus, the petitioners failed to establish that either of the two cases in which a variance was granted bore sufficient factual similarity to the subject application so as to require an explanation from the ZBA… . Matter of Blandeburgo v Zoning Bd of Appeals Town of Islip, 2013 NY Slip Op 06680, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

, ,

Petition Seeking Revocation of Building Permit Should Have Named the Director Who Had the Power to Revoke It

In affirming the grant of a building permit by the village board of appeals (BOA), the Second Department noted that only Director of Building, Code Enforcement and Land Use Administration had the power to revoke a building permit and therefore the Director should have been named in the Article 78 proceeding seeking revocation: …[I]n a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 which seeks to compel a body or officer to perform a duty imposed by law, the proceeding must be commenced against the body or officer whose performance is sought (see CPLR 7803). The petitioners sought to compel the BOA to revoke the building permit and any subsequently issued certificate of occupancy. However, only the Director is empowered to do so (see Village Code §§ 126-7, 126-12, 126-15). Thus, the petitioners should have named and joined the Director as a party to this proceeding … .  Matter of Lucas v Board of Appeals of Vil of Mamaroneck, 2013 NY Slip Op 05908, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

,

Planning Board Should Not Have Added Conditions for Approval of Final Plat Plan

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s determination that the planning board’s denial of approval of a final plat plan was arbitrary and capricious.  The Court determined that the planning board was aware of the variance upon which the denial was based (involving the transfer of sanitary flow credits) at the time it approved the preliminary plat plan:

Although the Planning Board’s approval of the preliminary plat in April 2010 did not guarantee approval of the final version (see Town Law § 276[4]), a planning board may not, in the absence of significant new information, deny final approval if a property owner implements the modifications or conditions required by a preliminary approval (…Terry Rice, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 61, Town Law § 276 Preliminary Review). Here, the Planning Board had long known that the SCDHS’s approval of a Suffolk County Sanitary Code variance was based on the transfer of sanitary flow credits and, indeed, the Planning Board specifically referenced that transfer in its April 2010 conditional preliminary approval. Inasmuch as no significant new information came to light after the Planning Board gave its approval to the preliminary plat, its imposition of additional requirements in the conditional final approval was, as the Supreme Court correctly held, arbitrary and capricious… . Matter of Nickart Realty Corp v Southold Town Planning Bd, 2013 NY Slip Op 05909, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

Variance Properly Granted/Review Criteria Explained

The Second Department, after noting that an application for a variance can be made by an agent for the property owner, determined the Board of Zoning Appeals had properly granted the lot-width variances.  In explaining the court’s role in reviewing variances, the court wrote:

…”[L]ocal zoning boards are vested with broad discretion in considering applications for area variances, and [c]ourts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure'” … . A variance determination of a zoning board should be sustained if it has a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious … .

Here, the Board properly balanced the requisite statutory factors, and its determination that the benefit to the applicant of the requested variances outweighed the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Town Law § 267-b[3][b]…). Among other things, the Board found that, despite a few wide lots in the vicinity of the premises, the majority of lots in the uninterrupted two-block segment of Bayview Avenue in which the subject premises were located had a width of 50 feet or less, and, thus, that the variances would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Matter of Huszar v Bayview Park Props LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05906, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

,

Violation of Zoning Ordinance Precludes Property Tax Exemption

The Fourth Department affirmed the determination the petitioner (a hospital) was not entitled to a property tax exemption because the use of the property was in violation of a zoning law.  After noting that a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7, and not an Article 78 proceeding, is the proper vehicle for challenging a tax assessment, the Fourth Department wrote:

The fact that petitioner used the subject property for “hospital purposes” as that term is used in the RPTL is not contested (RPTL 420-a [5]). Nevertheless, a property owner who uses its property for exempt purposes in violation of an applicable zoning law is prohibited from receiving a tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a… . Matter of Geneva General Hospital v Assessor of Town of Geneva…,559, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

,

Criteria for Review of Planning Board’s SEQRA Determination and Zoning Board’s Granting a Variance

In upholding the approval of a site plan, the Third Department determined the planning board met the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and zoning board properly granted a height variance. In explaining the criteria for both reviews, the Third Department wrote:

“‘Judicial review of an agency determination under SEQRA is limited to whether the [lead] agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination’….   “While judicial review must be meaningful, the courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role to ‘weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives'”….  The lead agency’s determination will only be annulled if it is arbitrary, capricious or unsupported  by  the evidence (see CPLR  7803  [3];…).     * * *

The [zoning board’s] determination to grant the variance is also valid.  In determining whether to grant a variance, the local zoning board must “‘engage in a balancing test, weighing the proposed  benefit to [the applicant] against the possible detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, as well as consider the five statutory factors enumerated in Town Law § 267-b (3)'”….  “Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances, and  judicial review is limited to determinating whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion”….  Matter of Schaller, 515824, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

Review Criteria for Actions by Zoning Boards of Appeal

In upholding Supreme Court’s annulment of the village Zoning Board of Appeal’s denial of petitioner’s application for a site capacity variance, the Second Department described the review criteria as follows:

Generally, local zoning boards have broad discretion in deciding applications… . “Courts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure” …. “[A] determination will not be deemed rational if it rests entirely on subjective considerations, such as general community opposition, and lacks an objective factual basis” …. “Conclusory findings of fact are insufficient to support a determination by a zoning board of appeals, which is required to clearly set forth how and in what manner the granting of the variance would be improper” … .  Matter of Luburic v Zoning Bd of Appeals of Vil of Irvington, 2013 NY Slip Op 03333, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

, ,

Town Zoning Ordinances Prohibiting Exploration For and Production of Natural Gas (In Response to Concerns Over Hydrofracking) Upheld​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, the Third Department held that a town zoning ordinance which banned “all activities which related to the exploration for, and the production or storage of, natural gas and petroleum,” passed in response to concern over “hydrofracking,”  was not preempted by New York’s Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law (OGSML) (ECL 23-0301, et seq).  The opinion includes an extensive discussion of the legislative history of the preemption language in the OGMSL, as well as the concepts of express, implied and conflict preemption. Norse Energy Corp, USA v Town of Dryden, et al, 515227, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

For identical reasons, a similar ordinance enacted by the Town of Middlefield was held valid by the Third Department.  Cooperstown Holstein Corp v Town of Middlefield, 515498, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

,

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

The plaintiffs, in a nuisance action, sought to enjoin the defendants “from maintaining more than one ‘main building’ on the premises, allegedly in violation of the Village Code.”  The Second Department, citing the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, ruled that the case for an injunction had not been made out because the plaintiffs never sought a determination of the legality of the use of the premises from the administrative agency responsible for zoning:

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction “generally enjoins courts having concurrent jurisdiction to refrain from adjudicating disputes within an administrative agency’s authority, particularly where the agency’s specialized experience and technical expertise is involved” …. Here, the plaintiffs failed to properly seek a determination regarding the legality of the use of the premises under the Village Code from the administrative bodies authorized to administer and enforce the Village’s zoning law … . Massaro v Jaina Network Sys, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03066, 2nd Dept, 5-1-13

 

,

Use Variance Criteria

The Second Department explained the criteria for a use variance as follows:

“[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” …. Here, [the property owner] failed to show, based on competent financial evidence, that it cannot yield a reasonable rate of return absent the requested variance. Therefore, the ZBA’s [Zoning Board of Appeals’] determination to grant a use variance for parking in the BB residence district must be annulled. Matter of Hejna v Board of Appeals…, 2013 NY Slip Op 02395, 2011-08146, Index No 29063/07, 2nd Dept 4-10-13

 

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