Colletti v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colletti v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc.

158 A.D.2d 446, 551 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1262

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 1990·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[447] We find that the petitioners have failed to come forward with proof of significant economic injury or to establish that strict compliance with the zoning law will cause "practical difficulties” (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444-445; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 596-597; Matter of Vivest Bldg. Corp. v Auwarter, 152 AD2d 582; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 AD2d 135, 138-139). "Proof that the ordinance caused the applicant mere inconvenience, or that the property could be utilized more profitably if an area variance were granted, is ordinarily not sufficient to justify the issuance of a variance, irrespective of the application’s seeming reasonableness” (Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra, at 140). Thus, the respondent properly denied the petitioners’ application. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[447] We find that the petitioners have failed to come forward with proof of significant economic injury or to establish that strict compliance with the zoning law will cause "practical difficulties” (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444-445; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 596-597; Matter of Vivest Bldg. Corp. v Auwarter, 152 AD2d 582; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 AD2d 135, 138-139). "Proof that the ordinance caused the applicant mere inconvenience, or that the property could be utilized more profitably if an area variance were granted, is ordinarily not sufficient to justify the issuance of a variance, irrespective of the application’s seeming reasonableness” (Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra, at 140). Thus, the respondent properly denied the petitioners’ application. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Colletti v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc., 158 A.D.2d 446, 551 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

158 A.D.2d 446 (Colletti v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related