Matter of Crossroads Recreation, Inc. v. Broz, 4 N.Y.2d 396 (1958)
A zoning variance based on unnecessary hardship requires proof that the property suffers a unique disadvantage due to the zoning regulation, and that the hardship is not merely a general condition in the neighborhood.
Summary
This case concerns a property owner’s application for a zoning variance to use a barn for antique storage in a residential zone. Neighboring residents challenged the variance. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the Zoning Board of Appeals had sufficient evidence to grant the variance. The court emphasized that the barn’s unique characteristics made conforming to the existing zoning impractical and that the proposed use was reasonable and would not negatively impact the neighborhood’s character. The court deferred to the board’s discretionary authority, finding no evidence of arbitrary or unlawful action.
Facts
The intervenors-appellants owned a three-story barn in an R-2 residential district. They had used the barn for antique storage for four years without objection before purchasing the property in 1964. The zoning ordinance permitted single-family residences, farms, nurseries, and greenhouses in the R-2 district, but not commercial antique storage. The barn was a lawful structure under the ordinance. The owners sought a variance to continue using it for antique storage, which was opposed by nearby residents (petitioners-respondents).
Procedural History
The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the variance. The Supreme Court annulled the Zoning Board’s determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s judgment. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Zoning Board of Appeals properly exercised its discretion in granting a variance to allow the use of a barn for antique storage in a residential zone, based on a finding of “unnecessary hardship.”
Holding
Yes, because the proof presented was sufficient to warrant the granting of the variance in the proper exercise of the board’s discretionary authority, as the barn’s unique size and impracticality for residential conversion constituted an unnecessary hardship, and the proposed use was reasonable and would not depreciate property values.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that it would not substitute its judgment for the board’s unless the decision was arbitrary or contrary to law, citing People ex rel. Hudson-Harlem Co. v. Walker, 282 N.Y. 400. The court found it impractical to convert the barn into a single-family dwelling due to its size and height. It also noted that residents were initially unaware of the barn’s use for antique storage and did not complain for five years, suggesting the use did not disturb the neighborhood.
The court distinguished this case from Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 N.Y. 71, where a variance was denied for a commercial roller skating rink in a residential zone. Unlike Otto, this case involved a unique physical circumstance: an existing barn unsuitable for permitted uses. The court emphasized that the board reasonably balanced the community’s welfare with the owner’s hardship. The court stated: “That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood.”
The court also found the board’s conditions attached to the variance ensured preservation of the neighborhood’s character and observed the spirit of the ordinance, secured public safety and welfare, and achieved substantial justice.
The dissent by Judges Scileppi and Jasen, which is not elaborated upon in this opinion, voted to affirm the lower court’s decision.