Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Board of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309 (1976)
A zoning board’s decision to grant an area variance will be upheld if it has a rational basis supported by substantial evidence showing that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the landowner.
Summary
Dean and Judith De Poy sought an area variance to subdivide their property, which met minimum area requirements but lacked the required frontage and side yard setbacks. Neighboring landowners objected, citing environmental concerns and increased density. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the variance, citing no adverse effect on property values, no obligation to maintain the wooded area, no substantial increase in density, and financial hardship. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and had a rational basis. The court emphasized that financial hardship, even if self-imposed, is a factor the board can consider. The court deferred to the zoning board’s determination, finding no abuse of discretion.
Facts
The De Poys owned a 62,660 square foot parcel in a residential zone requiring 30,000 square foot minimum lot size, 150-foot frontage, and 60 total feet side yard. They purchased the property knowing the zoning requirements. They sought a variance to create a second lot of 30,000 square feet in the rear of the property to build a new residence, necessitating an access road along the north side. This road would leave the front lot with a frontage of 98.43 feet and a side yard setback of 30 feet. While both proposed lots met minimum area, the front lot lacked required frontage and side yard setback.
Procedural History
Neighboring property owners commenced a proceeding to annul the Zoning Board’s determination. Special Term denied the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal to determine if the zoning board abused its discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Zoning Board of Appeals abused its discretion, as a matter of law, in granting the De Poys’ application for an area variance.
Holding
Yes, because the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record showing that the De Poys faced practical difficulties in conforming to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance.
Court’s Reasoning
The court distinguished between area and use variances, noting that the proof needed to support an area variance is less compelling. The court stated, “The oft-stated standard by which a request for an area variance is to be measured is whether strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties.” The court recognized the zoning board’s discretion and limited judicial review to instances of illegality, arbitrariness, or abuse of discretion. The court found substantial evidence supporting the board’s conclusion that constructing an additional residence meeting area requirements would not substantially increase density or adversely affect the neighborhood’s character, noting that surrounding homes were on smaller plots. The court addressed the neighbors’ aesthetic concerns, stating that the De Poys had no legal obligation to maintain their land for their neighbors’ benefit. While the hardship was self-imposed, the court stated that “the fact that the hardship was self-imposed does not preclude the zoning board from granting an area variance.” The court also noted the potential waste of land resulting from denying the variance, conflicting with the goal of efficient land use, quoting Berenson v. Town of New Castle, 38 NY2d 102, 109: “The fundamental purpose of all zoning ordinances is to provide for the development of a balanced community which will make efficient use of the land available in the community.” The court reiterated its limited role in substituting its judgment for that of the local zoning board when substantial evidence supports the board’s determination.