Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro

• Citation: 144 N.Y.S.3d 198,192 A.D.3d 805
• Decision Date: 10 March 2021
• Docket Number: 2018–07470,Index No. 51009/18
• Parties: In the Matter of Edgar MULLER, appellant, v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF LEWISBORO, et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

192 A.D.3d 805

144 N.Y.S.3d 198

In the Matter of Edgar MULLER, appellant,

v.ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF LEWISBORO, et al., respondents.

2018–07470

Index No. 51009/18

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

Submitted—December 10, 2020

March 10, 2021

Hogan & Rossi, Brewster, N.Y. (Nancy Tagliafierro of counsel), for appellant.

Herodes & Mol, P.C., Mahopac, N.Y. (Anthony R. Mol of counsel), for respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory relief, Edgar Muller appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (George E. Fufidio, J.), dated May 21, 2018. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, denied the petition to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Lewisboro dated December 13, 2017, made after a hearing, denying his application for a special use permit to operate a private kennel and a variance from the requirements of the Town of Lewisboro Code § 220–39, dismissed the proceeding, and dismissed the cause of action for a judgment declaring that Town of Lewisboro Code § 220–23(D)(7) is unconstitutional.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof dismissing the cause of action for a judgment declaring that Town of Lewisboro Code § 220–23(D)(7) is unconstitutional; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, the cause of action for a judgment declaring that Town of Lewisboro Code § 220–23(D)(7) is unconstitutional is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for severance of that cause of action and further proceedings on that cause of action.

Edgar Muller (hereinafter the petitioner) owns 11 Siberian Huskies that he keeps on a 2.1 acre property, which is situated in a residential district of the Town of Lewisboro designated R–2A. In July 2017, the petitioner submitted an application to the Town of Lewisboro Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter ZBA) for a special use permit to operate a private dog kennel, and a variance from the requirements of the Town of Lewisboro Code § 220–39, which only permits private kennels on lots of four acres or more and provides that the total number of dogs over six months of age in such a kennel cannot exceed 10. After a hearing, on December 13, 2017, the ZBA issued a resolution denying the petitioner's application. The petitioner then commenced this hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the ZBA's determination, and for a judgment, inter alia, declaring that Town of Lewisboro Code § 220–23(D)(7), which only allowed him to keep 5 dogs over six months of age on his residential property, is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding/action.

Where the local legislative body has found the special use to be appropriate for the zoning district, a special use permit generally will be granted if the applicant satisfies all of the conditions in the zoning ordinance (see Matter of Juda Constr., Ltd. v. Spencer, 21 A.D.3d 898, 900, 800 N.Y.S.2d 741 ; Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 224 A.D.2d 628, 628, 639 N.Y.S.2d 392, affd 90 N.Y.2d 1000, 665 N.Y.S.2d 627, 688 N.E.2d 501 ; Matter of J.P.M. Props., Inc. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 204 A.D.2d 722, 723, 612 N.Y.S.2d 634 ). "Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is ... sufficient basis upon which the zoning authority may deny the permit application" ( Matter of Wegmans Enters. v. Lansing, 72 N.Y.2d 1000, 1001–1002, 534 N.Y.S.2d 372, 530 N.E.2d 1292 ; see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 802, 402 N.Y.S.2d 388, 373 N.E.2d 282 ; Matter of Sullivan v. Town Bd. of Town of Riverhead, 102 A.D.2d 113, 115, 476 N.Y.S.2d 578 ), and a zoning board "does not have authority to waive or modify any conditions set forth in the ordinance" ( Matter of Dost v. Chamberlain–Hellman, 236 A.D.2d 471, 472, 653 N.Y.S.2d 672 ; see Matter of Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay, 72 A.D.3d 823, 825, 898 N.Y.S.2d 237 ; Matter of Vergata v. Town Bd. of Town of Oyster Bay, 209 A.D.2d 527, 528, 618 N.Y.S.2d 832 ). However, in conjunction with seeking a special use permit, an applicant may seek an area variance from a special use permit condition (see Town Law § 274–b[3] ; Matter of Tabernacle of Victory Pentecostal Church v. Weiss, 101 A.D.3d 738, 740, 955 N.Y.S.2d 180 ; Matter of Real Holding Corp. v. Lehigh, 304 A.D.2d 583, 756 N.Y.S.2d 893, affd 2 N.Y.3d 297, 778 N.Y.S.2d 438, 810 N.E.2d 890 ; Matter of Sunrise Plaza Assoc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Babylon, 250 A.D.2d 690, 693, 673 N.Y.S.2d 165 ).

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 (see Matter of Switzgable v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven, 78 A.D.3d 842, 843, 911 N.Y.S.2d 391 ). "A determination is rational ‘if it has some objective factual basis, as opposed to resting entirely on subjective considerations such as general community opposition’ " ( Matter of Caspian Realty, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenburgh, 68 A.D.3d 62, 67, 886 N.Y.S.2d 442, quoting Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 772, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98 ; see Matter of Schweig v. City of New Rochelle, 170 A.D.3d 863, 866, 95 N.Y.S.3d 569 ). In determining 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 area variance is granted (see Town Law § 267–b[3][b] ; Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254 ). The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational (see Matter of Kramer v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton, 131 A.D.3d 1170, 1172, 16 N.Y.S.3d 832 ).

Here, in denying the petitioner's application for variances, the ZBA properly applied the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors. The evidence in the record supported the ZBA's findings that granting the requested variances would produce...