Gomez v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Islip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gomez v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Islip

293 A.D.2d 610, 740 N.Y.S.2d 139, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3698

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

DecidedApril 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 610 (Gomez v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Islip) 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

Gomez v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Islip, 293 A.D.2d 610, 740 N.Y.S.2d 139, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Islip, dated February 8, 2000, as imposed a condition upon the granting of an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered January 29, 2001, which annulled the condition and remitted the matter for the issuance of the requested variance without the condition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that a zoning board is vested with great discretion (see Kingsley v Bennett, 185 AD2d 814, 815) and may impose conditions upon the granting of an area variance to preserve the peace, comfort, enjoyment, health, or safety of the surrounding area (see Matter of Baker v Brownlie, 270 AD2d 484, 485). Such conditions are deemed reasonable if they “(1) are directly related and incidental to the proposed use of the property, (2) are consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance [and (3)] minimize any adverse impacts resulting from the variance” (Matter of Baker v Brownlie, supra at 485). However, where the record reveals illegality, arbitrariness, or abuse of discretion, a court may set aside a zoning board’s determination (see Kingsley v Bennett, supra).

Here, the petitioner sought an area variance allowing the [611]*611construction of a two-story residence on a parcel of property smaller than that required under the zoning law. The appellant granted the variance but imposed a height restriction limiting the residence to a single story, stating that a larger home would accentuate the substandard size of the property. However, most of the homes in the area are two-story homes, and the width of the subject lot and the size of the area in front of the proposed home is similar to that of neighboring parcels. Thus, a two-story home on the subject lot would appear from the street to be no different than any other residence. Accordingly, the condition imposed by the zoning board was neither rational nor supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Khan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington, 87 NY2d 344, 351), and was properly annulled. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Islip, dated February 8, 2000, as imposed a condition upon the granting of an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered January 29, 2001, which annulled the condition and remitted the matter for the issuance of the requested variance without the condition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that a zoning board is vested with great discretion (see Kingsley v Bennett, 185 AD2d 814, 815) and may impose conditions upon the granting of an area variance to preserve the peace, comfort, enjoyment, health, or safety of the surrounding area (see Matter of Baker v Brownlie, 270 AD2d 484, 485). Such conditions are deemed reasonable if they “(1) are directly related and incidental to the proposed use of the property, (2) are consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance [and (3)] minimize any adverse impacts resulting from the variance” (Matter of Baker v Brownlie, supra at 485). However, where the record reveals illegality, arbitrariness, or abuse of discretion, a court may set aside a zoning board’s determination (see Kingsley v Bennett, supra).

Here, the petitioner sought an area variance allowing the [611]*611construction of a two-story residence on a parcel of property smaller than that required under the zoning law. The appellant granted the variance but imposed a height restriction limiting the residence to a single story, stating that a larger home would accentuate the substandard size of the property. However, most of the homes in the area are two-story homes, and the width of the subject lot and the size of the area in front of the proposed home is similar to that of neighboring parcels. Thus, a two-story home on the subject lot would appear from the street to be no different than any other residence. Accordingly, the condition imposed by the zoning board was neither rational nor supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Khan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington, 87 NY2d 344, 351), and was properly annulled. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 610, 740 N.Y.S.2d 139, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-of-town-of-islip-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack