Matter of Wilcox v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Yonkers, 17 N.Y.2d 249 (1966)
r
r
In an area zoned for a particular use, a variance relating to the height, floor area, and density of a building is an area variance, not a use variance, because the essential use of the land remains the same.
r
r
Summary
r
Westview Towers Corp. sought a variance to construct a 156-family apartment building in Yonkers, NY, exceeding the district’s height, floor area ratio, and lot area per family regulations due to significant topographical challenges. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the variance, but neighboring property owners challenged the decision. The key issue was whether the variance was a use variance (requiring proof of unnecessary hardship) or an area variance (requiring proof of practical difficulties). The New York Court of Appeals held that it was an area variance because the essential use (apartments) remained unchanged, and the record contained sufficient evidence of practical difficulties due to the unusual topography.
r
r
Facts
r
Westview Towers Corp. owned a parcel of land in Yonkers zoned for low-density apartment houses (“MG” District). The property had a significant slope, with the westerly boundary approximately 80 feet lower than the easterly frontage. Westview sought to construct a 156-family apartment building that exceeded the MG District’s restrictions on height (55 feet vs. 39 feet max), floor area ratio (1.58 vs. 1.00 max), and lot area per family (790 sq ft vs. 1,500 sq ft min). Westview argued that complying with the zoning regulations would require an additional $225,000 to $250,000 in construction costs due to the steep incline.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Yonkers granted the variance. Petitioners (neighboring property owners) brought proceedings in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, seeking to annul the variance. Special Term dismissed the petitions and upheld the variance. The Appellate Division reversed, deeming the variance a use variance (or a combined use and area variance) and remitted the matter to the zoning board to take proof that would satisfy the requirements for a use variance. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision based on a stipulation for judgment absolute.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a variance relating to the height, floor area, and density of an apartment building in an area zoned for apartments is a use variance or an area variance.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the essential use of the land (apartments) remains the same, even though the specific characteristics of that use (height, lot area, floor area ratio) may change. The variance sought was an area variance.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals distinguished between use variances and area variances. It stated that a use variance involves a change in the essential character of the zoned district, whereas an area variance does not. The court emphasized that the essential use of the property remained apartments, despite the requested changes to height, floor area, and density. Therefore, the variance was an area variance. The court explicitly disapproved of the lower court’s holding in Matter of Markovich v. Feriola, which classified similar variances as combined area and use variances, requiring the higher standard of proof associated with use variances. The court found that the record contained substantial evidence of “practical difficulties” faced by Westview due to the unusual topography of the land, including the significant cost increase associated with complying with the zoning regulations. The court highlighted the Board’s findings, based on a personal inspection, that the 80-foot difference in grade required unusual site preparation and costly foundations, and that this topography was not common to the overall zone. The court emphasized that there was evidence that “it would cost at least $225,000 more to construct this building because of the unusual topographical problem—the 80-foot incline” and that