Human Development Services of Port Chester, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Port Chester, 507 N.E.2d 703 (N.Y. 1987)

A self-created hardship is a factor to consider in area variance applications, but it does not automatically justify denial; the critical inquiry is whether strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance serves a valid public purpose that outweighs the harm to the property owner.

Summary

Human Development Services sought a rear-yard variance to install a driveway for a community residence. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance, citing aesthetic concerns, insufficient parking, and self-created hardship. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Board’s denial was arbitrary and capricious. The Court emphasized that while a self-created hardship is a relevant factor, the primary concern is whether strict enforcement of the ordinance serves a valid public purpose that outweighs the property owner’s injury. Here, the Village Attorney conceded that without the variance, the building would have to be torn down. The Court deemed that requiring the house’s removal to preserve its aesthetic charm was capricious, especially considering the proposed use was legally considered a single-family unit with adequate parking.

Facts

Human Development Services of Port Chester, Inc. (HDS) purchased property intending to use it as a community residence. HDS sought a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (the Board) to reduce the rear-yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 21.4 feet, to allow for a driveway along the rear lot line to reach a proposed parking area. HDS had attempted to purchase additional land from the adjacent owner without success. Prior to the purchase, HDS was aware that the village questioned the rear setback. The Village Attorney conceded the proposed use was a single-family dwelling under the statute and that without the variance, the building would have to be torn down.

Procedural History

HDS applied for a variance, which the Zoning Board denied. HDS then commenced a review proceeding. The Board sought dismissal, arguing no practical difficulty existed and any difficulty was self-created. The lower courts upheld the Zoning Board’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division, finding the Board’s denial arbitrary and capricious.

Issue(s)

Whether the Zoning Board of Appeals acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying a rear-yard variance for a community residence, considering the conceded necessity of demolishing the building absent the variance and the argument of self-created hardship.

Holding

Yes, because the Board’s denial of the variance was arbitrary and capricious, as no valid public purpose was served by the denial that outweighed the significant injury to the property owner (requiring removal of the existing building). The Court found the stated reasons for denial insufficient in light of the admissions regarding the necessity of demolition and the legal status of the community residence as a family unit.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals focused on the Village Attorney’s concession that the building would have to be torn down without the variance and that HDS had unsuccessfully sought to purchase additional land. Because the Board’s answer did not deny these specific allegations, they were deemed admitted under CPLR 3018(a). The Court then addressed the Board’s reasons for denying the variance: aesthetic concerns regarding the turn-of-the-century house and stone fence, insufficient parking, and self-created hardship. The Court dismissed the aesthetic concerns, stating it was capricious to require removal of the house to retain its charm. Regarding parking, the Court noted HDS offered to provide whatever the Board required, and the zoning ordinance did not require more parking spaces than HDS proposed for a family unit, as the community residence was legally defined under Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34(f). The Court then addressed the self-created hardship argument, referencing Matter of De Sena v Board of Zoning Appeals, 45 NY2d 105, 108, stating: “A finding of self-created hardship normally should not in and of itself justify denial of an application for an area variance. The basic inquiry at all times is whether strict application of the ordinance in a given case will serve a valid public purpose which outweighs the injury to the property owner.” The Court found no valid public purpose would be served by denying the variance and requiring the building’s removal. Therefore, the denial was arbitrary and capricious. The court emphasized that the severity of the hardship if the variance was denied (demolition of the building) weighed heavily against the relatively minor impact of granting the variance.