From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Freese v. Levitan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1986
117 A.D.2d 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

February 24, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.).


Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

David Minkin sought area variances with respect to a proposed subdivision that had been conditionally approved by the Village Planning Board. To obtain area variances he presented considerable evidence that compliance with the Zoning Ordinance will result in practical difficulties (see, Matter of Village of Bronxville v. Francis, 1 A.D.2d 236, 238, affd 1 N.Y.2d 839; Matter of Hoffman v. Harris, 17 N.Y.2d 138, 144; Dauernheim, Inc. v. Town Bd., 33 N.Y.2d 468, 471; Matter of Cowan v. Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 598; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v. Hoffman, 43 N.Y.2d 598, 606). The respondent Board of Zoning Appeals found that "the exceptional topography of the property in question and the irregular configuration of the property ha[ve] created many of the hardships and practical difficulties experienced by the Applicant thereby necessitating the variances sought herein". In dismissing the CPLR article 78 petition of the appellants (adjacent property owners), Special Term concluded that the Board's decision "has a reasonable basis and is supported by substantial evidence". We agree.

The Board granted the variances after a careful review of the evidence. Its determination was not arbitrary, illegal, or an abuse of discretion and the evidence shows that the decision has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, Matter of Cowan v. Kern, supra). Although the petitioners contend that Minkin's difficulties were self-created, in that their source was his desire to maximize the number of buildable plots, we find that the record does not sustain that claim. In any event, that factor, in this area variance case, "is one factor that may be considered, but, by itself, is not determinative" (Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 315) and "does not foreclose board approval of an area variance" (Matter of National Merritt v Weist, 41 N.Y.2d 438, 442). Lazer, J.P., Gibbons, Thompson and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Freese v. Levitan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1986
117 A.D.2d 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Matter of Freese v. Levitan

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FREDERICK M. FREESE et al., Appellants, v. DAVID LEVITAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 24, 1986

Citations

117 A.D.2d 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Matter of Wiley v. Board of Appeals

ariances which would allow it to replace the existing building with a 2,304-square-foot store which would…

Matter of Pottick, Fox R. W. Bldrs. v. Duncan

In addition, the petitioner submitted area maps indicating numerous other similar and substantial variances…