Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2008

Home

92 Zoning Bulletin ing board of appeals (the board). Specifically, she sought variances' (~-! reducing the area requirement to one-half acre and reducing the per- -'''---' mitted width at the setback line from 125 feet to approximately 104 feet for one of the subdivided lots. The board denied London's application for the area variances. She appealed. The lower court found for the board, denying London's pe- tition and dismissing the proceeding. London appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The court upheld the board's denial of the area variances, finding the denial was not illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion. London had argued that tlie board's decision was arbitrary and capricious because the board failed to explain why its denial of her variance application was a differeht result from when it granted prior variance applications. The court found that the board's conclusion was not illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion be- cause it was based on documented evidence that the proposed vari- ances were substantial and would lead to a detrimental change in the character of the neighborhood. The court acknowledged that an ad- ministrative agency's determination was arbitrary and capricious if it did not adhere to its prior precedent or set forth reasons why its re'" suIt differed from prior precedent despite the saine facts. The court foillld that variance applications previously granted by the board had different facts and circumstances than London's application. There- . fore, the court said, the board was not required to explain its depar- ture from its prior area variance grants. . See also: Pecoraro v.Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N. Y.3d 608, 781 N. Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404 (2004); Conversions for Real Estate, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Village of Roslyn, 31 AD.3d 635, .818 N.Y.S.2d 298 (2d Dep't 2006). :J 12 , * "," ~ {-'"'r-". ,~ c