Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 N.Y.2d 801 (1977)
A zoning board may deny a special exception permit if the applicant fails to demonstrate compliance with the specific standards outlined in the zoning ordinance, and the standards are not so general as to grant unchecked discretion to the board.
Summary
Tandem Holding Corp. sought a special exception permit to construct a private parking lot in a residential district adjacent to a proposed shopping center. The Board of Zoning Appeals denied the application, finding it would negatively impact the surrounding residential area. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the Board’s determination was supported by evidence showing the project failed to meet the ordinance’s standards for granting special exceptions. The Court clarified that while a zoning board cannot arbitrarily deny special exception applications, entitlement to such an exception is not a matter of right and depends on meeting the ordinance’s specific standards.
Facts
Tandem Holding Corp. applied for a special exception to build a private parking lot in a residential zone. The proposed parking lot was intended to serve a shopping center planned for an adjacent business district. The Board of Zoning Appeals determined that the parking lot’s development would significantly alter the character of the surrounding residential area. The Board also cited concerns about diminished property values and increased traffic congestion.
Procedural History
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied Tandem Holding Corp.’s application. The Appellate Division reversed the Board’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the Board of Zoning Appeals’ original determination.
Issue(s)
Whether the Board of Zoning Appeals properly denied Tandem Holding Corp.’s application for a special exception permit, based on its determination that the proposed parking lot failed to meet the standards set forth in the zoning ordinance, and whether those standards were sufficiently specific.
Holding
Yes, because the Board’s determination was supported by evidence in the record showing that the proposed parking lot would negatively impact the surrounding residential area, and the standards in the ordinance were sufficiently specific to guide the Board’s discretion. The court found the applicant failed to demonstrate the project met the ordinance’s requirements for a special exception.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that obtaining a special exception is not an automatic right. Applicants must demonstrate compliance with the specific standards outlined in the zoning ordinance. The Court distinguished this case from others where denials were deemed arbitrary because those ordinances lacked elaborated standards. Here, the Board presented evidence that the parking lot would negatively impact the residential area by altering its character, diminishing property values, and increasing traffic. The Court acknowledged that zoning boards cannot arbitrarily deny applications simply because of general objections to the proposed special use. However, the Court found no evidence that the ordinance granted unchecked discretion to the zoning board: “The stated standards in the ordinance guiding the board’s consideration of special exception applications condition availability of a special exception, and compliance with those standards must be shown before any exception can be secured.” The Court added a caveat that “Standards governing issuance of special exceptions may not be so general or tautological as to allow unchecked discretion on the part of the zoning board.” Because no such infirmity existed in the ordinance, the board’s denial was proper.