Opinion
638 CA 20-01094
08-26-2021
In the Matter of Charles GUTTMAN and Shirley Ladd, Petitioners-Appellants-Respondents, v. COVERT TOWN BOARD, Respondent-Respondent, Paul Mikeska and Heidi Mikeska, Respondents-Respondents-Appellants.
THE CROSSMORE LAW OFFICE, ITHACA (ANDREW P. MELENDEZ OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS. SHARON M. SULIMOWICZ, ITHACA, FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
THE CROSSMORE LAW OFFICE, ITHACA (ANDREW P. MELENDEZ OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS.
SHARON M. SULIMOWICZ, ITHACA, FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to respondent Covert Town Board for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioners appeal and Paul Mikeska and Heidi Mikeska (respondents) cross-appeal from a judgment that, inter alia, granted in part petitioners’ CPLR article 78 petition seeking, among other things, to annul the determination of respondent Covert Town Board (Town Board) granting respondents’ application for a variance from the requirement that they must obtain a building permit before making improvements to their property. We are unable on the record before us to review the propriety of Supreme Court's conclusions regarding the Town Board's determination (see Matter of Fike v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Webster , 2 A.D.3d 1343, 1343, 769 N.Y.S.2d 415 [4th Dept. 2003] ). Generally, "[f]indings of fact which show the actual grounds of a decision are necessary for an intelligent judicial review of a quasi-judicial or administrative determination" ( Matter of South Blossom Ventures, LLC v. Town of Elma , 46 A.D.3d 1337, 1338, 848 N.Y.S.2d 806 [4th Dept. 2007], lv dismissed 10 N.Y.3d 852, 859 N.Y.S.2d 614, 889 N.E.2d 492 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Livingston Parkway Assn., Inc. v. Town of Amherst Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 114 A.D.3d 1219, 1219-1220, 980 N.Y.S.2d 206 [4th Dept. 2014] ; see also Matter of Paloma Homes, Inc. v. Petrone , 10 A.D.3d 612, 613, 781 N.Y.S.2d 675 [2d Dept. 2004] ). Here, although the Town Board held a public hearing and a meeting to discuss respondents’ application and engaged in a lengthy discussion regarding that application, the Town Board failed to articulate its reasons for granting the variance and failed to set forth any findings of fact to support its determination. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to the Town Board to set forth the factual basis for its determination.