Inlet Homes Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

New York Court of Appeals

Inlet Homes Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

812 N.E.2d 1246, 2 N.Y. 769, 2 N.Y.3d 769, 780 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 931

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 4, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 812 N.E.2d 1246 (Inlet Homes Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Inlet Homes Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 812 N.E.2d 1246, 2 N.Y. 769, 2 N.Y.3d 769, 780 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 931 (N.Y. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.

Giving due deference to the broad discretion of zoning boards considering applications for area variances (see Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]), the denial by respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of petitioner’s application for an area variance to build a single-family dwelling upon an illegally nonconform[726]*726ing substandard parcel had a rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence. The record supports the Board’s finding that the character of the neighborhood is overwhelmingly conforming to the zoning requirements and that a grant of the area variance would have an adverse effect on the surrounding community. As the court below further recognized, the alleged difficulty here was self-created in that when purchasing the property, petitioner was aware that the Board had previously denied to the contract vendor an area variance for the same lot and under the same circumstances.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.

Giving due deference to the broad discretion of zoning boards considering applications for area variances (see Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]), the denial by respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of petitioner’s application for an area variance to build a single-family dwelling upon an illegally nonconform[726]*726ing substandard parcel had a rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence. The record supports the Board’s finding that the character of the neighborhood is overwhelmingly conforming to the zoning requirements and that a grant of the area variance would have an adverse effect on the surrounding community. As the court below further recognized, the alleged difficulty here was self-created in that when purchasing the property, petitioner was aware that the Board had previously denied to the contract vendor an area variance for the same lot and under the same circumstances.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

812 N.E.2d 1246, 2 N.Y. 769, 2 N.Y.3d 769, 780 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inlet-homes-corp-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-ny-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack