Feinberg- Smith Assocs., Inc. v. Town of Vestal Zoning Bd. of Appeals
Decision Date | 27 December 2018 |
Docket Number | 526070 |
Citation | 91 N.Y.S.3d 578,167 A.D.3d 1350 |
Parties | In the Matter of FEINBERG- SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC., Doing Business as Hayes Student Living Community, Appellant, v. TOWN OF VESTAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Respondent, et al., Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Pope, Schrader & Pope, LLP, Binghamton (Alan J. Pope of counsel), for appellant.
Levene, Gouldin & Thompson, LLP, Vestal (Cynthia Ann Manchester of counsel), for Town of Vestal Zoning Board of Appeals, respondent.
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ.
McCarthy, J.P.Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Faughnan, J.), entered August 16, 2017 in Broome County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Town of Vestal Zoning Board of Appeals denying petitioner's request for three zoning variances.
Petitioner's property in the Town of Vestal, Broome County contains eight buildings with one- and two-bedroom apartments leased to students who attend a nearby university. Seeking approval of a project to create additional housing on this property, petitioner filed an application with respondent Town of Vestal Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter the ZBA) for five area variances. During the hearing process, petitioner withdrew two of its variance requests, but retained its requests to increase the number of dwelling units based on the lot size, decrease the minimum living area per unit and decrease the required number of parking spaces. After the ZBA denied the variance requests, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging that determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals.
The ZBA's decision was supported by the record and had a rational basis. and is supported by the record ( Matter of Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d 608, 613, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404 [2004] [citations omitted]; see CPLR 7803[3] ; Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732 [2002] ; Matter of Wen Mei Lu v. City of Saratoga Springs, 162 A.D.3d 1291, 1292, 78 N.Y.S.3d 764 [2018] ; Matter of Russo v. City of Albany Zoning Bd., 78 A.D.3d 1277, 1279, 910 N.Y.S.2d 263 [2010] ). When deciding whether to grant a variance, a zoning board must ( Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d at 307–308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732 [internal citation omitted]; see Town Law § 267–b [3 ][b] ). "[S]cientific or expert testimony is not required in every case to support a zoning board's determination" ( Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d at 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732 ). Regardless of how a court might have decided the matter in the first instance, the court's function is only to review the zoning board's decision rather than substitute its own judgment (see Matter of Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d at 613, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404 ).
When rendering its decision, the ZBA was "not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence with respect to each of the five factors, so long as its ultimate determination balancing the relevant considerations was rational" ( Matter of Merlotto v. Town of Patterson Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 43 A.D.3d 926, 929, 841 N.Y.S.2d 650 [2007] ; see Matter of Cohen v. Town of Ramapo Bldg., Planning & Zoning Dept., 150 A.D.3d 993, 994, 54 N.Y.S.3d 650 [2017] ). The record reflects the large differences between a project as permitted under the zoning regulations and the relief requested by petitioner. The regulation for minimum lot size would permit 154 units on the property, whereas petitioner sought permission for a total of 409 apartments. Petitioner sought to reduce the minimum living space per unit from 750 square feet to 474 square feet. Petitioner also sought to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 818 to 309. Under its proposal, petitioner intended to lease to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clover/Allen's Creek Neighborhood Ass'n v. M & F, LLC
...it is not based upon conjecture, but a firm nucleus of facts. Cf. Feinberg-Smith Assoc., Inc. v. Town of Vestal Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 167 A.D.3d 1350, 1353 (3d Dept 2018) (OML claim was speculative); Residents for a More Beautiful Port Washington, Inc. v. Town of N. Hempstead, 153 A.D.2d 7......
-
Chenango Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. William J. (In re Camden J.)
...removal from the parents' custody. Following the ACD order, the father failed to, among other things, engage in recommended services and 167 A.D.3d 1350evaluations, attend monthly caseworkers' visits, enable monitoring of his home, attend parenting classes, apply for benefits or procure sta......
-
54 Marion Ave., LLC v. City of Saratoga Springs, 528705
...41 N.Y.2d at 599, 394 N.Y.S.2d 579, 363 N.E.2d 305 ; see Matter of Feinberg–Smith Assoc., Inc. v. Town of Vestal Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 167 A.D.3d 1350, 1351, 91 N.Y.S.3d 578 [2018] ; Matter of Wen Mei Lu v. City of Saratoga Springs , 162 A.D.3d 1291, 1292, 78 N.Y.S.3d 764 [2018] ). To qua......
-
Hoots v. Town of Rochester Zoning Bd. of Appeals
...its ultimate determination balancing the relevant considerations was rational" ( Matter of Feinberg–Smith Assoc., Inc. v. Town of Vestal Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 167 A.D.3d 1350, 1352, 91 N.Y.S.3d 578 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Further, "[a] zoning board's interp......
-
B. Standard of Review
...size, traffic and parking all aspects of neighborhood character); Feinberg-Smith Assoc., Inc. v. Town of Vestal Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 167 A.D.3d 1350, 91 N.Y.S.3d 578 (3d Dep't 2018).[292] 246 A.D.2d 762, 668 N.Y.S.2d 62 (3d Dep't 1998).[293] Id.[294] 248 A.D.2d 527, 670 N.Y.S.2d 216 (2d D......