Typically, zoning variances “run with the land”, and absent a specific time limitation, they continue until properly revoked. See, St. Onge v. Donovan, 71 NY2d 507, [1988]. As a result, variances cannot be made to apply only to the current owner. But under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), reasonable accommodations can be made
No Standing to Protect the Pine Barrens
Before adjudication, a court must determine whether a plaintiff has standing. Standing means that the party has a right to access the courts for a particular dispute. A petitioner bears the burden to show an actual injury and that the violated statute was meant to prevent this type of injury. In land use matters specifically,
Reversal of Zoning Board’s Denial of Variance Application Upheld on Appeal
In Matter of O’Connor and Son’s Home Improvement, LLC v. Acevedo, et al., the petitioner, O’Connor and Son’s Home Improvement, LLC (“Petitioner”), owns a 120-foot by 57-foot parcel of property (the “Property”) located in the City of Long Beach (the “City”) on Long Island, which it purchased in 2015. In or around June, 2016,
Appellate Division Upholds ZBA Determination Transferred from Supreme Court Pursuant to CPLR §7804(g)
In 2017, 8 Bayberry Rd, LLC submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Bellport (“ZBA”) seeking several variances to convert an existing three-car garage into a squash court and work out area resulting in a new 23 foot high building in the front yard, ten feet from the side
Second Department Affirms Denial of Religious Organization’s Application for Conditional Use Permit
In Matter of Sid Jacobson Jewish Community Ctr., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Brookville, the Second Department reviewed a local zoning board’s denial of an applicant’s request to expand and improve the facilities on its property. The applicant/petitioner, Sid Jacobson Jewish Community Center, Inc. (“Petitioner”), is a “nonprofit
Appellate Division Rejects Neighbor Attempt to Add Variances to Scope of Property Owner’s ZBA Application.
Absent local legislation to the contrary, town and village zoning boards act solely as appellate bodies authorized to hear and decide appeals taken from decisions by local zoning enforcement officials (ZEOs) (see Town Law § 267-A[4] [McKinney’s]; Village Law § 7-712-A[4] [McKinney’s]). The most common example of such appeals occurs when an applicant property-owner or
Appellate Division Upholds Supreme Court Dismissal of Article 78 Petition Against East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals
In the Matter of Parsome, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of East Hampton, decided February 10, 2021, the petitioner appealed the denial of an Article 78 Petition by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld the Supreme Court’s determination. Specifically, petitioner purchased property in the manufacturing
Second Department Upholds Town’s Determination Allowing Property Owners to Build Hot Tub in Wetland Buffer
In Matter of Bernstein v Putnam Val. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, property owners sought to construct a hot tub on their residential property, located in a protected area known as a wetland buffer. The Wetlands Inspector for the Town of Putnam Valley (the “Town”) granted the owners a permit waiver, and shortly thereafter, the
Village of East Hampton Law Prohibiting Special Events at Hedges Inn Struck Down for Failure to Comply with NYS Village Law §7-702
The Hedges Inn (Hedges Inn) is a pre-existing, nonconforming, historic inn with 14 rooms and a restaurant at 74 James Lane in the Village of East Hampton (Village) in the R160 Residence District. In February 2018, Hedges Inn submitted permit applications to the Village for four weddings to be held outdoors in tents at the
Second Department Reverses Denial of Existing Use Application, Holds Landowner Has Prior Nonconforming Use in Property for Storage of Construction Equipment
In a recent decision, Matter of Labate v DeChance, the Second Department held that a landowner could continue to use his property to store construction equipment, despite a zoning ordinance prohibiting that type of use.
By way of background, the petitioner (“Petitioner”) owns property located in Rocky Point, within the Township of Brookhaven (the