Matter of Bodner v. Town of Pleasant Val. Town Bd.

Opinion

Matter of Bodner v Town of Pleasant Val. Town Bd.

2026 NY Slip Op 05098

August 26, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of Richard Bodner, et al., respondents,

v

Town of Pleasant Valley Town Board, et al., appellants.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 26, 2026

2024-07930, (Index No. 54651/23)

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

Valerie Brathwaite Nelson

Deborah A. Dowling

Susan Quirk, JJ.

Warren S. Replansky, P.C., Rhinebeck, NY, for appellants.

Rebecca A. Valk, Poughkeepsie, NY, for respondents.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Pleasant Valley Town Board dated October 16, 2023, and action for declaratory relief, the respondents/defendants appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Maria G. Rosa, J.), dated July 18, 2024. The order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the petition which was to annul the determination dated October 16, 2023, and remitted the matter to the Town of Pleasant Valley Town Board for the issuance of the requested variance and further proceedings.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the petition which was to annul the determination dated October 16, 2023, is denied, and that portion of the proceeding is dismissed.

The petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter the petitioners) own four parcels of land located in the Town of Pleasant Valley. The petitioners applied to the Town of Pleasant Valley Planning Board to realign the lotlines for the four parcels to create three residential lots that would each contain a single-family home. The petitioners proposed a shared driveway to provide the three lots with access to a public road (hereinafter the driveway). The driveway did not meet the requirement that it have an "unobstructed sight distance of 300 feet minimum to 400 feet maximum, in either direction" (Code of the Town of Pleasant Valley § 46-3[A]). The petitioners applied to the Town of Pleasant Valley Town Board (hereinafter the Town Board) for the necessary area variance and an open development area approval (hereinafter the ODA). On October 16, 2023, after multiple hearings, the Town Board denied the petitioners' application.

The petitioners commenced this hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action against the Town Board, the Town of Pleasant Valley, and John Baxter, in his official capacity as the Town Highway Superintendent (hereinafter collectively the Town respondents), to review the Town Board's determination on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious and for related declaratory relief. In an order and judgment dated July 18, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the petition which was to annul the determination and remitted the matter to the Town Board for the issuance of the requested area variance and further proceedings with respect to the application for the ODA. The Town respondents appeal.

"'Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion'" (Matter of Carella v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo, 235 AD3d 974, 975, quoting Matter of 153 Mulford Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of E. Hampton, 205 AD3d 1019, 1021). "'The determination of a local zoning board is entitled to great deference, and will be set aside only if it is illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or irrational'" (Matter of Gabriele v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Eastchester, 228 AD3d 659, 660, quoting Matter of Seaview Assn. of Fire Is., NY, Inc. v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 221 AD3d 717, 718). "A determination is rational if it has some objective factual basis, as opposed to resting entirely on subjective considerations such as general community opposition" (Matter of Schweig v City of New Rochelle, 170 AD3d 863, 866 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of 666 OCRTT, LLC v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, 200 AD3d 682, 683). "Where supporting evidence exists, a court may not substitute its own judgment for that of a zoning board, even if a contrary determination is itself supported by the record" (Matter of Margulies v Town of Ramapo, 226 AD3d 783, 784 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Duke v Brosnan, 206 AD3d 652, 653).

"In determining whether to grant an area variance, a zoning board of appeals is required to engage in a balancing test weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community" (Matter of Estate of Stelling v Gaudioso, 204 AD3d 788, 789; see Matter of Hamptons Residence, LLC v Village of E. Hampton, 241 AD3d 1467, 1468; see also Town Law § 267-b[3][b]). In making this determination, the board must consider the following factors: "(1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created; which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance" (Matter of Maldonado v Board of Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Val. Stream, 244 AD3d 1210, 1211 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of deBordenave v Village of Tuxedo Park Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 168 AD3d 838, 839; see also Town Law § 267-b[3][b]). "The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational" (Matter of Hamptons Residence, LLC v Village of E. Hampton, 241 AD3d at 1468 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Humphreys v Somers Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 206 AD3d 1000, 1002).

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the record demonstrates that the Town Board considered the relevant statutory factors (see Matter of Palmer v Town of New Windsor Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 226 AD3d 688, 690). Moreover, the Town Board's determination to deny the application for the area variance had a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Estate of Stelling v Gaudioso, 204 AD3d at 790). The evidence before the Town Board supported its conclusions that granting the requested area variance and the ODA would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and that the variance was substantial and would have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood (see Matter of Hamptons Residence, LLC v Village of E. Hampton, 241 AD3d at 1468; Matter of Humphreys v Somers Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 206 AD3d at 1002).

The petitioners' remaining contention is without merit.

DILLON, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, DOWLING and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court