The Appellate Division, Second Department, in Chestnut Ridge Associates, LLC v 30 Sephar Lane, Inc. 169 A.D.3d 995, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 01388 [2d Dept 2019], modified a decision of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which, inter alia, annulled a determination of the Village of Chestnut Ridge (“Chestnut Ridge”) Zoning Board
Court Upholds East Hampton Town ZBA Determination Denying Application for a Natural Resources Special Permit
In the Matter of Strandkorb, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Hampton, dated February 11, 2019, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, upheld the Town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals determination which denied the petitioner’s request to construct a new two story residence with a garage, pool, patio
Stopping A Zoning Enforcement Action In Court
Builders, developers and property owners are often cited for zoning violations that become the subject of criminal enforcement proceedings in court (i.e. appearance tickets). Certainly, a party can have the court decide the matter, however, an appeal to a Board of Zoning Appeals can be used to stay any and all court enforcement proceedings. This
The Effect or Interpretation of an Ordinance at the Time of Review Applies, Despite Long-Standing Historical Views
In The Committee for Environmentally Sound Development v. Amsterdam Avenue Development Associates, LLC, 2019 WL 1206357, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 30621(U), Index No. 153819 (Sup. Ct. New York Co., March 14, 2019), the Supreme Court, New York County, granted a petition to annul a resolution upholding the issuance of a building permit (“
Appellate Division Reverses North Hempstead Denial of Pre-Existing Nonconforming Two-Family Home In Business District
In Abbatiello v Town of North Hempstead, 164 A.D.3d 785 [2d Dept. 2018], the Second Department recently reversed Supreme Court, Nassau County and granted the petitioner’s CPLR Article 78 challenge to the Town of North Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals (“Board”) denial of a use variance. In finding that the house was a “legal
Remediation of Petroleum Spills Amount to Continuation of Nonconforming Use
In Matter of HV Donuts, LLC v. Town of LaGrange Zoning Board of Appeals, the Second Department recently held that a property owner’s nonconforming use rights continue despite a temporary business interruption caused by a fuel truck accident and gasoline spill.
The property owner, Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc. (the “Owner”), leased the subject property (the
Getting Lost in the “Open Space” of New York City’s Superblocks
In Peyton v. New York City Bd. of Standards and Appeals, (2018 N.Y. 06870, 166 A.D.3d 120 (1st Dept 2018), Petitioners-community residents (“Petitioners”) commenced a proceeding to challenge the City of New York (“City”) Board of Standards and Appeals’s (“Board”) resolution upholding the City Department of
Potential Conflicts and Interplay between the Village of Southampton Board of Architectural and Historic Preservation and the Village of Southampton Zoning Code
In a decision dated October 30, 2018, Supreme Court Judge Joseph Pastoressa remanded a decision made by the Southampton Village Architectural and Historic Board (BARHP) for further consideration. Manger et al. v. Board of Architectural Review and Historic Review of the Village of Southampton.
The property owner in Manger applied to the BARHP
Third Department Says “Yes” and Upholds Wedding Venue as Custom and Incidental Accessory Use
Local zoning ordinances throughout New York State incorporate the flexible “accessory use” component so as not to unnecessarily restrict one’s use of property. Accessory uses are incidental and customary to the principal use of property. Determining whether a use is actually “accessory,” however, is often debated – especially where the use is not specifically enumerated
Use Variance Denied By Second Department Regardless Of Alleged Prior Precedent: Village of Patchogue
The Second Department recently reversed a Suffolk County Supreme Court decision granting a use variance for a mother-daughter residence in the Village of Patchogue (the “Village”), in spite of statements made on the record by the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) Chairman implying prior precedent approving such applications.
In June 2014, the petitioner applied to