Overhill Building Co. v. Board of Appeals, 28 N.Y.2d 446 (1971)

When considering variances from zoning regulations concerning off-street parking, courts apply the rules for area variances, but self-imposed hardships can still be a factor in denying a variance if a legitimate public purpose is served by the zoning restriction.

Summary

Overhill Building Company sought a variance to convert parking spaces into office space, which would increase a pre-existing nonconforming use concerning off-street parking. The Board of Appeals denied the variance, citing an attempt to expand a nonconforming use and self-created hardship. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision to grant the variance. While the court treated the variance as an area variance, it held that the Board of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the variance because the zoning authorities demonstrated a legitimate public purpose (alleviating traffic congestion) was served by the parking restrictions, and the property owner had not been deprived of all reasonable use of the property.

Facts

Overhill Building Company owned a building in a Business A zone of Scarsdale, partially used for apartments and partially for office space. A 1959 zoning amendment required one off-street parking space for every 150 square feet of floor area in buildings constructed before November 1, 1959. This requirement translated to 306 parking spaces for Overhill’s building, but the company maintained only 117, creating a pre-existing nonconforming use. In 1970, Overhill sought to convert 1,850 square feet of parking space into office space, which would eliminate 12 parking spaces and require even more spaces under the ordinance.

Procedural History

The Village Building Inspector denied Overhill’s building permit application. The Board of Appeals denied Overhill’s application for a variance. Overhill commenced an Article 78 proceeding, and Special Term annulled the Board’s determination, ordering the permit issued. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a variance request involving off-street parking requirements in a business zone should be treated as an area variance or a use variance.
2. Whether the Board of Appeals abused its discretion by denying the variance, considering the property owner’s economic injury and the purpose of the zoning ordinance.

Holding

1. Yes, because when courts are faced with applications for variances from zoning regulations which prescribe the number of off-street parking spaces required for a building, the rules relating to area variances obtain.
2. No, because the zoning authorities demonstrated a legitimate public purpose was to be served by the restrictions placed on respondent’s property.

Court’s Reasoning

The court determined that the variance should be treated as an area variance because the intended use (additional office space) was permitted in the business zone. Area variances are evaluated under the standard set in Matter of Fulling v. Palumbo, requiring a showing of significant economic injury to the property owner. If such injury is shown, the zoning authorities must demonstrate that the zoning standard is justified by public health, safety, and welfare. However, the court clarified that this standard does not negate the principle that self-imposed hardships can justify denying a variance.

The court distinguished Fulling, where all surrounding properties were also nonconforming and the ordinance aimed at neighborhood beautification. Here, the ordinance served a legitimate public purpose: alleviating traffic congestion and promoting public safety. Even though surrounding properties were nonconforming, this purpose justified the parking restrictions. The court found that the Board of Appeals could reasonably determine that increased business space would exacerbate traffic problems. Because Overhill only demonstrated financial loss, not a deprivation of all reasonable use of the property, the Board’s decision was not arbitrary.

The court addressed Overhill’s argument that the zoning ordinance was facially unconstitutional, finding that an Article 78 proceeding was not the proper vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a legislative enactment. The proper remedy would be a declaratory judgment action.