Wen Mei Lu v. City of Saratoga Springs

• Decision Date: 14 June 2018
• Docket Number: 525651
• Citation: 78 N.Y.S.3d 764,162 A.D.3d 1291
• Parties: In the Matter of WEN MEI LU, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS, et al., Respondents, et al., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

162 A.D.3d 1291

78 N.Y.S.3d 764

In the Matter of WEN MEI LU, et al., Appellants,

v.CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS, et al., Respondents, et al., Respondent.

525651

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

Calendar Date: April 27, 2018

Decided and Entered: June 14, 2018

Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany (Jon E. Crain of counsel), for appellants.

Vincent J. DeLeonardis, City Attorney, Saratoga Springs, for City of Saratoga Springs and others, respondents.

Braymer Law, PLLC, Glens Falls (Claudia K. Braymer of counsel), for Matt Sames and another, respondents.

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Mulvey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Chauvin, J.), entered July 11, 2017 in Saratoga County, which dismissed petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Saratoga Springs granting an application by respondents Matt Sames and Pet Lodges, Inc. for area variances.

Respondents Matt Sames and Pet Lodges, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the applicants) own real property comprised of six contiguous parcels in the City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County. The property, which was commonly owned prior to the adoption of respondent City of Saratoga Springs' current zoning ordinance, is approximately 105 feet wide and located within two zoning districts. The roughly 285–foot westerly portion of the property situated closer to State Route 9 is located within the Tourist Related Business District, and the remaining 359–foot portion to the east is located within the Rural Residential District. In 2016, the applicants submitted an application to respondent Steve Shaw, the City's Zoning and Building Inspector, seeking approval of the proposed construction of a pet boarding facility on the property. Shaw denied the application on the ground that the proposed project required area variances for certain setback requirements. Thereafter, the applicants applied to respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Saratoga Springs (hereinafter the ZBA) for the required area variances. Petitioners, owners of a neighboring parcel of property, submitted letters to the ZBA opposing the application on the basis that the proposed project required a use variance and that the applicants, in any event, failed to demonstrate their entitlement to an area variance. Following public hearings and after applying the statutorily prescribed criteria for an area variance (see General City Law § 81–b [4 ][b] ), the ZBA granted the requested area variances. Petitioners subsequently commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the ZBA's determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and this appeal by petitioners ensued.

We affirm. "The law is well settled that 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 or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Rehabilitation Support Servs., Inc. v. City of Albany Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 140 A.D.3d 1424, 1425, 34 N.Y.S.3d 256 [2016] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Vomero v. City of New York , 13 N.Y.3d 840, 841, 892 N.Y.S.2d 284, 920 N.E.2d 340 [2009] ; Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732 [2002] ). Thus, a zoning board's determination will not be disturbed upon judicial review if it has a rational basis and is supported by the record (see 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] ; Matter of Jones v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Oneonta, 90 A.D.3d 1280, 1281, 934 N.Y.S.2d 599 [2011] ).

Initially, we find that the ZBA rationally determined that a use variance is not required for the proposed project. Under the City's zoning ordinance, animal kennels are permitted in districts zoned as Rural Residential, but are prohibited in Tourist Related Business districts (see City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance § 2.2[E][1] ). The zoning ordinance further provides that where, as here, "a zoning district boundary line divides a lot or land in single ownership as existing at the time of this enactment, the district requirements on either side of the boundary may be construed, at the property owner's option, as extending into the remaining portion of the property for a distance not exceeding 100 feet" (City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance § 1.7[D] ). The applicants chose the option to extend the boundary of the Rural Residential District 100 feet to the west. As a result, the animal kennel will be located entirely on the portion of the property within the Rural Residential District, where it is an expressly permitted use. While a small portion of the facility's parking area and the driveway providing ingress and egress to Route 9 will lie within the Tourist Related Business District, the ZBA could rationally find that such accessory uses within a Tourist Related Business zone were not prohibited under the zoning ordinance (see generally Matter of Lavender v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Bolton , 141 A.D.3d 970, 972, 35 N.Y.S.3d 582 [2016], appeal dismissed 28 N.Y.3d 1051, 43 N.Y.S.3d 248, 65 N.E.3d 1283 [2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 907, 2017 WL 1843263 [2017] ; Matter of Meier v. Village of Champlain Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 129 A.D.3d 1364, 1365, 11 N.Y.S.3d 743 [2015] ). In any event, the ZBA noted that "any land use in the adjacent [Rural Residential] zone, including a residence, would also require access over the differing zone," and it is settled that zoning boards of appeal " ‘are invested with the power to vary zoning regulations in specific cases in order to avoid unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties arising from a literal application of the zoning law’...