Plessinger v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Islip, 62 N.Y.2d 824 (1984)
When a zoning ordinance authorizes interpretation of its requirements by a board of appeals, the board’s specific application of a term to a particular property is governed by the board’s interpretation, unless unreasonable or irrational.
Summary
This case addresses the extent of discretion a zoning board has in interpreting zoning ordinances. The petitioner sought to subdivide his property, creating a flag-shaped parcel. The dispute centered on the location of the rear lot line, which affected compliance with the average width requirement. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) determined the proposed rear lot line was not “generally opposite” the front, and the lot came to a point in the rear, requiring a variance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ZBA’s decision, holding that the ZBA’s interpretation was not unreasonable or irrational and that the denial of the variance was supported by substantial evidence.
Facts
The petitioner, Plessinger, sought to subdivide his residential plot to create a “pothandle” or “flag-shaped” parcel. The proposed new residence was to be located behind the existing residence. The new parcel conformed to all zoning requirements except average width, which depended on the location of the rear lot line. The zoning ordinance defined “rear lot line” as the line generally opposite the front lot line, with an alternative definition for lots coming to a point at the rear.
Procedural History
The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) determined that the petitioner’s proposed rear lot line was not “generally opposite” the front and that the lot came to a point in the rear, requiring a variance. The ZBA denied the variance application. The Appellate Division affirmed the ZBA’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Zoning Board of Appeals’ interpretation of the zoning ordinance regarding the location of the rear lot line was unreasonable or irrational.
Holding
No, because the zoning ordinance authorized the board of appeals to interpret its requirements, and the board’s interpretation was not unreasonable or irrational given the peculiar shape of the lot.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the principle that zoning ordinances should be strictly construed in favor of the property owner. However, it noted an exception: where it’s difficult for the legislature to create definitive, all-encompassing rules, reasonable discretion in interpreting the legislative direction may be delegated to an administrative body. Here, the zoning ordinance authorized the board of appeals to interpret its requirements. The court cited Matter of 440 E. 102nd St. Corp. v Murdock, 285 NY 298,309 and stated that “specific application of a term of the ordinance to a particular property is, therefore, governed by the board’s interpretation, unless unreasonable or irrational.” The Court found the board’s conclusion that the proposed rear lot line was not generally opposite the front lot line, and that the lot came to a point in the rear, was neither unreasonable nor irrational, given the lot’s peculiar shape. Therefore, a variance was required, and its denial was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.