Schweig v. City of New Rochelle

• Decision Date: 13 March 2019
• Docket Number: Index No. 3676/15,2016–07941
• Citation: 95 N.Y.S.3d 569,170 A.D.3d 863
• Parties: In the Matter of Barry SCHWEIG, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

170 A.D.3d 863

95 N.Y.S.3d 569

In the Matter of Barry SCHWEIG, et al., Appellants,

v.CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE, et al., Respondents.

2016–07941

Index No. 3676/15

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

Argued - October 17, 2018

March 13, 2019

Neufeld, O'Leary & Giusto, New York, N.Y. (David S.J. Neufeld and Janet Kljyan of counsel), for appellants.

Gaines, Novick, Ponzini, Cossu & Venditti, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Denise M. Cossu and Robert J. Ponzini of counsel), for respondents.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action to recover damages for an unconstitutional taking of property, the petitioners/plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barbara G. Zambelli, J.), dated June 1, 2016. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, denied the petition to review a determination of the City of New Rochelle Board of Appeals on Zoning dated November 10, 2015, denying an area variance, and dismissed the proceeding and the cause of action to recover damages for an unconstitutional taking of property.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter the petitioners) owned a residential property, which was improved with a home, and an adjacent undeveloped 10,018–square–foot lot in the City of New Rochelle. In 2004, the City established a moratorium on subdivisions in the zone covering the petitioners' properties to consider increasing the lot area required for future improvements on property. Ultimately, the City changed the required lot size for building purposes in the zone where the petitioners' properties were located from 10,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet. However, the amended City Code (Code of the City of New Rochelle § 331–13[C] ) provided: "A building permit may be issued for the erection of a one-family residential building on a lot in a one-family residential district which was located in the R1–7.5 or the R1–10 District prior to May 19, 2005, notwithstanding that the lot frontage or lot area of such lot is less than that required for the district in which such lot is located at the time of issuance of the building permit, provided that 1) such lot met the lot frontage and lot area requirements in effect for such lot in the R1–7.5 or R1–10 District, as the case may be, prior to May 19, 2005, and 2) such lot was in different ownership than any other lot or lots contiguous thereto on May 19, 2005, and still is in different ownership as of the date of issuance of the building permit " (emphasis added).

In 2014, the petitioners listed their home and the adjacent lot for sale. In January 2015, the petitioners sold the improved lot, but not the adjacent vacant lot. On May 27, 2015, the petitioners applied for a building permit seeking to construct a new one-family residence on the vacant lot. On July 14, 2015, the City's building department denied the permit, stating that the lot was not compliant with the applicable zoning law as it was smaller than the required 15,000 square feet. On August 13, 2015, the petitioners applied to the City of New Rochelle Board of Appeals on Zoning (hereinafter BAZ) for an area variance in order to build a house on the now substandard lot. After two days of hearings, the BAZ issued a resolution denying the variance based on the following findings:

"a. The variances sought are substantial in that there was a deficiency of almost five thousand (5,000) square feet of lot area requiring a variance of 33% and in balancing the equities there is no compelling or unique circumstances that weigh in favor of granting the variances required to construct the house over the value of preserving the existing character of the neighborhood.

"b. The evidence demonstrated that there will be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties because the applicant is seeking to construct a home on an undersized lot where the City Council determined approximately ten (10) years prior to upzone the neighborhood in keeping with the established character of the neighborhood of larger homes on larger lots. Even though the proposed construction of a single family home in the neighborhood may not be a departure from the surrounding properties, the proposed construction would not be consistent with the property density in the neighborhood, and if the variance was granted, it would produce a uniquely substandard lot with a substantial variance.

"c. The evidence demonstrated that to approve the application would result in an adverse physical and environment effect to the surrounding neighbors as demonstrated by the detailed oral statements from area residents based on personal knowledge.

"d.... [C]onsidering the above factors and the balancing test required for an area variance, the evidence weighs heavily in favor of denying 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 was illegal, arbitrary, 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, quot...