Pansa v. Sitrin, 27 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 1967)
The 30-day period to appeal a zoning board decision does not begin to run against a party seeking revocation of a permit until their objections have been formally overruled and they have received notice of that decision.
Summary
The Pansas, homeowners, challenged a zoning board decision that approved a permit for Sitrin to build a structure near their property. The Pansas argued the building was a prohibited “warehouse” and violated setback requirements. The Zoning Board of Appeals dismissed their appeal as untimely, claiming it was filed more than 30 days after the permit’s issuance. The court held that for a party seeking revocation of a permit, the 30-day appeal period begins when their revocation request is formally denied and they receive notice, not from the permit’s initial issuance. The court remitted the case to the Appellate Division to address the merits of the other zoning issues.
Facts
Alexander and Ruth Pansa owned a home in a residential zone. Neighbor Sitrin owned commercially zoned property bordering the Pansas’ lot. Sitrin obtained a permit on September 21, 1962, to build what the plans described as a “warehouse.” The Pansas observed construction starting around September 24. On September 26, Alexander Pansa learned of the permit and attended meetings with city officials, Sitrin, and representatives from the Buildings Department, Corporation Counsel’s office, and Planning Commission regarding his objections to the permit. On October 9, 1962, Pansa requested the Planning Commission revoke the permit, but was told a written decision would be rendered, allowing the losing party to appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Procedural History
The city building commissioner issued a building permit to Sitrin. The Pansas appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals, arguing the permit was invalid. The Zoning Board of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely but also ruled against the Pansas on the merits. Special Term dismissed the proceeding based on the untimely appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Pansas’ appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals was timely, considering the zoning ordinance requirement to appeal within 30 days of the “date of the decision.”
Holding
No, because the 30-day appeal period for a party seeking permit revocation begins when their objections are formally overruled and they receive notice of that decision.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that interpreting the zoning ordinance strictly to mean 30 days from the permit’s issuance would be unreasonable, as it could prevent appeals if neighbors only learn of the permit long after its issuance. While applying this timeline to permit applicants might be fair, it is not for those demanding revocation. The court emphasized construing statutes reasonably to protect citizens’ rights. The court stated, “[I]t is the duty of the courts to construe statutes reasonably and so as not to deprive citizens of important rights.” It interpreted the ordinance to mean the 30-day period for seeking revocation begins only after objections are overruled in a “decision” with proper notice. Because the Zoning Board of Appeals and Special Term addressed the merits of the other issues, but the Appellate Division did not, the Court of Appeals withheld determination of the appeal and requested the Appellate Division to amend its order to address the other questions presented, excluding the timeliness of the appeal. This allows for a complete review of all issues in the case.