Foti v. Town of East Hampton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foti v. Town of East Hampton

60 A.D.3d 1057, 876 N.Y.S.2d 137

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 31, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 1057 (Foti v. Town of East Hampton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Foti v. Town of East Hampton, 60 A.D.3d 1057, 876 N.Y.S.2d 137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CELR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of East Hampton, New York, Zoning Board of Appeals dated October 24, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a natural resources special permit and three area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated October 5, 2007, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“[L]ocal zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for area variances and the judicial function in reviewing such decisions is a limited one. 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” (Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004]; see Matter of Millennium Custom Homes, Inc. v Young, 58 AD3d 740 [2009]). Here, the record supports a finding that the Town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter the ZBA) considered the factors enumerated in Town Law § 267-b (3) (b) and properly weighed the benefit to the petitioner against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community if the variances were granted. Moreover, we reject the petitioner’s argument that the denial of his application was irrational because it failed to adhere to the ZBA’s precedent. The ZBA’s explanation for denying the petitioner’s application despite having granted the prior owners a permit to construct a home on the property was rational and satisfactory (see Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 594-595 [1977]; Matter of Nozzleman 60, LLC v Village of Cold Spring Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 34 AD3d 682, 683 [2006]). Inasmuch as there is a rational basis for the ZBA’s determina[1058]*1058tion and evidence in the record to support it, the determination was properly confirmed (see Matter of Millennium Custom Homes, Inc. v Young, 58 AD3d 740 [2009]; Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d 514 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CELR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of East Hampton, New York, Zoning Board of Appeals dated October 24, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a natural resources special permit and three area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated October 5, 2007, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“[L]ocal zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for area variances and the judicial function in reviewing such decisions is a limited one. 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” (Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004]; see Matter of Millennium Custom Homes, Inc. v Young, 58 AD3d 740 [2009]). Here, the record supports a finding that the Town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter the ZBA) considered the factors enumerated in Town Law § 267-b (3) (b) and properly weighed the benefit to the petitioner against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community if the variances were granted. Moreover, we reject the petitioner’s argument that the denial of his application was irrational because it failed to adhere to the ZBA’s precedent. The ZBA’s explanation for denying the petitioner’s application despite having granted the prior owners a permit to construct a home on the property was rational and satisfactory (see Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 594-595 [1977]; Matter of Nozzleman 60, LLC v Village of Cold Spring Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 34 AD3d 682, 683 [2006]). Inasmuch as there is a rational basis for the ZBA’s determina[1058]*1058tion and evidence in the record to support it, the determination was properly confirmed (see Matter of Millennium Custom Homes, Inc. v Young, 58 AD3d 740 [2009]; Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d 514 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 1057, 876 N.Y.S.2d 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foti-v-town-of-east-hampton-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack