Scharaga v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scharaga v. Board of Zoning Appeals

175 A.D.2d 209, 573 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9803

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 175 A.D.2d 209 (Scharaga v. Board of Zoning 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

Scharaga v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 175 A.D.2d 209, 573 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, dated June 21, 1988, which, after a hearing, denied their application for a variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated October 16, 1989, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a zoning board is vested with great discretion, and its determination "will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444, 445-446; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 599; McGowan v Cohalan, 41 NY2d 434, 438; Matter of Wilcox v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 17 NY2d 249, 255; CPLR 7803). The zoning board’s determination that the petitioners failed to establish that strict compliance with the fence height requirements of the zoning ordinance (Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance § 74) will cause "practical difficulties” was rationally based upon the record and supported by substantial evidence and therefore properly sustained (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra; Matter of Cowan v Kern, supra; Matter of Faham v Bockman, 151 AD2d 665). Kunzeman, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, 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 a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, dated June 21, 1988, which, after a hearing, denied their application for a variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated October 16, 1989, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a zoning board is vested with great discretion, and its determination "will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444, 445-446; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 599; McGowan v Cohalan, 41 NY2d 434, 438; Matter of Wilcox v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 17 NY2d 249, 255; CPLR 7803). The zoning board’s determination that the petitioners failed to establish that strict compliance with the fence height requirements of the zoning ordinance (Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance § 74) will cause "practical difficulties” was rationally based upon the record and supported by substantial evidence and therefore properly sustained (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra; Matter of Cowan v Kern, supra; Matter of Faham v Bockman, 151 AD2d 665). Kunzeman, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D.2d 209, 573 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scharaga-v-board-of-zoning-appeals-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack