Snyder v. Gaul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Snyder v. Gaul

229 A.D.2d 587, 645 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8283

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

DecidedJuly 29, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 229 A.D.2d 587 (Snyder v. Gaul) 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

Snyder v. Gaul, 229 A.D.2d 587, 645 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Belle Terre, dated March 20, 1995, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated August 4,1995, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed the respondents to issue the requested variance.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The Supreme Court improperly relied on the stipulation of the parties settling a prior proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which concerned a rear yard variance, to annul the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Belle Terre (hereinafter ZBA) in the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 which concerns front and side yard variances.

In addition, it is well settled that in determining whether to grant an application for 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 Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384; see also, Matter of O’Hara v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 226 AD2d 537; Matter of Eccles v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 224 AD2d 525). Review of the ZBA’s ''findings of fact” herein indicates that it applied the [588]*588balancing test and concluded that the potential detriment to the community outweighed the potential benefit to the petitioner. Since the factual findings of the ZBA had a rational basis, and were supported by substantial evidence, its determination should not have been annulled by the Supreme Court (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Belle Terre, dated March 20, 1995, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated August 4,1995, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed the respondents to issue the requested variance.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The Supreme Court improperly relied on the stipulation of the parties settling a prior proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which concerned a rear yard variance, to annul the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Belle Terre (hereinafter ZBA) in the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 which concerns front and side yard variances.

In addition, it is well settled that in determining whether to grant an application for 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 Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384; see also, Matter of O’Hara v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 226 AD2d 537; Matter of Eccles v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 224 AD2d 525). Review of the ZBA’s ''findings of fact” herein indicates that it applied the [588]*588balancing test and concluded that the potential detriment to the community outweighed the potential benefit to the petitioner. Since the factual findings of the ZBA had a rational basis, and were supported by substantial evidence, its determination should not have been annulled by the Supreme Court (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 587, 645 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-gaul-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack