Petitioner, Claude Simon (“Petitioner”), owns approximately 2.25 acres of property in the Village of Upper Nyack (the “Village”), which he sought to subdivide into two separate lots. The first lot would contain the existing dwelling and other existing improvements. The vacant second lot would be improved with a single-family dwelling. However, the Village advised Petitioner that he would need to
Continue Reading Second Department Affirms Article 78 Reversal of Village Zoning Board Determination
Appellate Division Upholds Denial of Article 78 Petition Against Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Haven
Ronald A. Kaye, the property owner at 39 Actors Colony Road, Village of North Haven, sought to subdivide his 157, 241 square foot property into two residential lots. The subject property is located in the Residence R-1 Zoning District where the minimum lot size is 80,000 square feet. In October of 2016,
Continue Reading Appellate Division Upholds Denial of Article 78 Petition Against Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Haven
Landowner’s Intent to Mine Property Sufficient to Establish Nonconforming Use
In a recent decision, Matter of Red Wing Properties, Inc. v. Town of Rhinebeck, et al., the Second Department held that a landowner’s intent to continue using its property for mining operations established a valid pre-existing nonconforming use.
Red Wing Properties, Inc. (“Petitioner”) owns roughly 241 acres of property located with the Town of Rhinebeck (the “Town”). For several
Continue Reading Landowner’s Intent to Mine Property Sufficient to Establish Nonconforming Use
Letters Exchanged Between Developer and Architectural Review Board Insufficient to Constitute Enforceable Settlement Agreement
In Matter of Pittsford Canalside Props., LLC v Village of Pittsford Zoning Bd. of Appeals, et al., the Fourth Department held that settlement correspondence between a development firm, Pittsford Canalside Properties, LLC (“PCP” or “Petitioner”), and the Village of Pittsford Architectural Preservation and Review Board (the “ARB”), was not an enforceable settlement agreement.
PCP owned property located within the
Continue Reading Letters Exchanged Between Developer and Architectural Review Board Insufficient to Constitute Enforceable Settlement Agreement
Zoning Boards May Consider the Proposed Use and Purpose When Deciding Area Variance Applications, But Cannot Forget the Five-Factors
When deciding an area variance application, a zoning board may consider the proposed use of the property and the purpose in seeking the variance. However, the zoning board cannot fail to account for the five-factor test mandated by statute (see General City Law § 81-b[4][b][i]-[v]; Town Law § 267-b[3][b]; Village Law § 7-712-b[3][b]) and typically included within the respective
Continue Reading Zoning Boards May Consider the Proposed Use and Purpose When Deciding Area Variance Applications, But Cannot Forget the Five-Factors
Second Department Reverses Dismissal of Article 78 Proceeding on Ripeness Grounds
A recent Second Department decision, Matter of Village of Kiryas Joel v County of Orange, et al., addresses the intriguing justiciability doctrine of ripeness, as applied to judicial review of municipal administrative action.
In 2007, Orange County (the “County”) acquired property known as Camp LaGuardia from the New York City Economic Development Corporation. Originally, the County’s plan was to
Continue Reading Second Department Reverses Dismissal of Article 78 Proceeding on Ripeness Grounds
Court Upholds Zoning Board’s Denial of Gas Station’s Area Variance Application
In Matter of Magid Setauket Assoc., LLC v The Town of Brookhaven Bd. of Zoning Appeals, the petitioners were the owner and the operator (“Petitioners”) of a Shell gas station located in the Old Setauket Historic District (the “Historic District”) Transition Zone, in the Town of Brookhaven (the “Town”). Petitioners applied for an area variance to permit them to
Continue Reading Court Upholds Zoning Board’s Denial of Gas Station’s Area Variance Application
Supreme Court, Suffolk County Upholds ZBA Determination Authorizing a Change In Nonconforming Use
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County recently upheld a determination of the Southampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) perhaps ending a lengthy and controversial review of the development of a day camp on residentially zoned property with frontage on Little Fresh Pond. The subject property is located at 665 Major’s Path in
Continue Reading Supreme Court, Suffolk County Upholds ZBA Determination Authorizing a Change In Nonconforming Use
Dog Training Business is Not a “Customary Home Occupation” According to Upstate NY Town
A recent Fourth Department decision upheld a determination by the Town of Westmoreland Zoning Board of Appeals (the “Westmoreland ZBA” or the “Board”) finding that a dog training business is not a “customary home occupation” within the meaning of the local zoning code.
Matter of McFadden v Town of Westmoreland Zoning Bd. presents a strikingly similar issue to that in
Continue Reading Dog Training Business is Not a “Customary Home Occupation” According to Upstate NY Town
Appellate Division Affirms Supreme Court Determination Upholding Southampton Town ZBA Decision
By decision dated December 17, 2015, the Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals granted relief from Town Code §330-82 to allow a zero foot road frontage (where 40 feet is required) for two landlocked parcels located at 86 and 138 Old Sag Harbor Road in North Sea to allow for the construction of a single family residence. The
Continue Reading Appellate Division Affirms Supreme Court Determination Upholding Southampton Town ZBA Decision