Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d 608 (2004)

Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for area variances, and their decisions will be upheld if they have a rational basis and are supported by substantial evidence, even if a court might have decided the matter differently.

Summary

Gregory Pecoraro sought an area variance to build a single-family home on a substandard parcel of land. The Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead denied the variance, citing the substantial nature of the variance requested, the self-created difficulty (the parcel was illegally subdivided), and the potential negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. Pecoraro challenged the denial, but the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion. The Court emphasized the broad discretion afforded to local zoning boards and the limited role of judicial review in such matters, finding the Board’s decision rational and supported by evidence.

Facts

Pecoraro entered into a contract to purchase a substandard parcel of land contingent on obtaining an area variance to build a single-family dwelling. The property, located in a residential zone requiring 6,000 square feet and 55 feet of frontage, had only 4,000 square feet and 40 feet of frontage. The lot had been illegally subdivided in 1959. A prior variance request for the same parcel had been denied in 1969. Pecoraro presented evidence that the proposed development would be in character with the neighborhood and would not negatively affect property values.

Procedural History

Pecoraro applied for an area variance, which the Board of Appeals denied. He then commenced an Article 78 proceeding challenging the Board’s determination. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the Board’s decision and remanding for further proceedings. The Appellate Division modified, directing the Board to issue the variance. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead abused its discretion, as a matter of law, in denying Pecoraro’s application for an area variance.

Holding

No, because the Board reasonably considered the factors outlined in Town Law § 267-b, weighed the petitioner’s interest against the interest of the neighborhood, and its decision had a rational basis supported by substantial evidence.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the broad discretion afforded to local zoning boards in area variance decisions. It stated that courts may only set aside a zoning board’s determination if the board acted illegally, arbitrarily, abused its discretion, or succumbed to generalized community pressure. Citing Matter of Cowan v. Kern, the Court noted that zoning decisions are best made by local officials familiar with local conditions. The Court found that the Board’s decision was rational and supported by substantial evidence, as the Board properly considered the factors in Town Law § 267-b(3), including the potential negative impact on the neighborhood’s character, the substantiality of the variance requested, and the self-created nature of the difficulty. The Board’s conclusion that the area variance would have a negative impact was supported by evidence showing that the area was overwhelmingly conforming or larger than the zoning requirements. “The variance sought would have allowed a 33.3% deficiency in lot area and a 27.3% deficiency in frontage width. It was not an abuse of discretion to determine that the substantiality of such a variance weighed against granting it.” The Court also noted that granting a variance for an illegally substandard parcel could set a negative precedent, potentially leading to landowners illegally subdividing oversized parcels in the future. The Court concluded that it would not substitute its judgment for the reasoned judgment of the zoning board, emphasizing that “The judicial responsibility is to review zoning decisions but not, absent proof of arbitrary and unreasonable action, to make them”.