Kramer v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Southampton

• Decision Date: 23 September 2015
• Docket Number: 2014-07377, Index No. 10884/13.
• Citation: 16 N.Y.S.3d 832,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06919,131 A.D.3d 1170
• Parties: In the Matter of TODD KRAMER, et al., respondents, v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

131 A.D.3d 1170

16 N.Y.S.3d 832

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06919

In the Matter of TODD KRAMER, et al., respondents

v.ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, appellant.

2014-07377, Index No. 10884/13.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Sept. 23, 2015.

Tiffany S. Scarlato, Town Attorney, Southampton, N.Y. (Kathryn V. Garvin of counsel), for appellant.

Esseks, Hefter & Angel, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (Anthony C. Pasca and Kevin A. McGowin of counsel), for respondents.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JEFFREY A. COHEN and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton dated March 21, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners' application for certain setback and area variances, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Martin, J.), dated April 9, 2014, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton to grant the application.

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

In 2009, the petitioners purchased property located in Bridgehampton in the Town of Southampton. In connection with an amended variance issued in 2011, the petitioners built a house on the lot, as well as a pool, deck, and trellis in the front yard. In addition, they built an accessory structure under the trellis, consisting of, among other things, a barbecue, sink, cabinets, countertop, and refrigerator. Thereafter, on December 12, 2012, the petitioners' application for a building permit was denied on the ground that the accessory structure, which served as a kitchen, was not permitted in the front yard. The petitioners subsequently filed an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton (hereinafter the ZBA) seeking setback and area variances for the accessory structure. After a hearing, the ZBA denied the application. The petitioners then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the ZBA's determination. The Supreme Court determined that the ZBA's determination lacked a rational basis and was arbitrary and capricious, granted the petition, and remitted the matter to the ZBA to grant the requested variances.

“ ‘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 [and capricious], or an abuse of discretion” (Matter of Daneri v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Southold, 98 A.D.3d 508, 509, 949 N.Y.S.2d 180, quoting Matter of Matejko v. Board of Zoning of Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, 77 A.D.3d 949, 949, 910 N.Y.S.2d 123 ; see Matter of Celentano v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, 63 A.D.3d 1156, 1157, 882 N.Y.S.2d 448 ). Thus, a zoning board's determination should be sustained if it is not illegal, is not arbitrary and capricious, and has a rational basis (see Matter of Blandeburgo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Islip, 110 A.D.3d 876, 877, 972 N.Y.S.2d 693 ; Matter of Daneri v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Southold, 98 A.D.3d at 509, 949 N.Y.S.2d 180 ).

In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a zoning board must 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 if the variance is granted (see Town Law § 267–b [3] [b] ; Matter of Daneri v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Southold, 98 A.D.3d at 509, 949 N.Y.S.2d 180 ). The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with...