Miller v. Zoning Board of Appeals

276 A.D.2d 633, 714 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10323
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 16, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 633 (Miller v. Zoning Board of Appeals) 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
Miller v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 276 A.D.2d 633, 714 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Hampton dated March 23, 1999, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for two area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated November 4, 1999, which annulled the determination and directed the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Hampton to issue the variances.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the second decretal paragraph thereof directing the issuance of the requested variances; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs and disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Hampton for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

It is well settled that local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering variance applications and that judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action taken by the board is illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444-445; Matter of Perla v Heller, 251 AD2d 419; Matter of Rosof v Bailin, 237 AD2d 612). A zoning board’s determination “must be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Toys “R” Us v Silva, 89 NY2d 411, 419).

[634]*634In this case, however, the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Hampton (hereinafter the ZBA) does not reflect that it considered the five statutory factors set forth in Town Law § 267-b (3) (b). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the ZBA for a new determination on the petitioners’ applications (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384; Matter of Lynch v Trotta, 264 AD2d 484). Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

NYE, ROGER v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
Nye v. Zoning Board of Appeals
81 A.D.3d 1455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Hannett v. Scheyer
37 A.D.3d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Bianco Homes II, Inc. v. Weiler
295 A.D.2d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Josato, Inc. v. Wright
288 A.D.2d 384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Wertheimer v. Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals
287 A.D.2d 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 A.D.2d 633, 714 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2000.