DeGroote v. Town of Greece Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 35 A.D.3d 1177 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
DeGroote v. Town of Greece Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 35 A.D.3d 1177 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …rendered its determination after considering the appropriate factors and properly weighing the benefit to petitioner s against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variances were granted at p. 1178 ✓
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Kotary v. Town of Floyd Zoning Bd. of Appeals (nyappdiv, 2026-04-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Kotary v. Town of Floyd Zoning Bd. of Appeals (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Here, we conclude that the ZBA "rendered its determination after considering the [*2] appropriate factors and properly weighing the benefit to petitioner against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community" if the variances were granted ( Matter of DeGroote v Town of Greece Bd. of Zoning Appeals , 35 AD3d 1177, 1178 [4th Dept 2006]; see Sasso , 86 NY2d at 382).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Buffalo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
The ZBA "rendered its determination after considering the appropriate factors and properly weigh[ed] the benefit to [the applicant] against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variances were granted" ( Matter of DeGroote v Town of Greece Bd. of Zoning Appeals , 35 AD3d 1177, 1178 [4th Dept 2006]; see § 81-b [4] [b]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People, Inc. v. City of Tonawanda Zoning Board of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as respondent “rendered its determination after considering the appropriate factors and properly weighing the benefit to petitioner [s] against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variances were granted” (Matter of DeGroote v Town of Greece Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 35 AD3d 1177, 1178 [2006]; see Matter of Concerned Citizens of Perinton v Town of Perinton, 261 AD2d 880 , 880 [1999], appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 1040 [1999], cert denied 529 US 1111 [2000]), we agree with respondent that the court erred in granting the petition.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People, Inc. v. City of Tonawanda Zoning Board of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as respondent “rendered its determination after considering the appropriate factors and properly weighing the benefit to petitioner [s] against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variances were granted” (Matter of DeGroote v Town of Greece Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 35 AD3d 1177, 1178 [2006]; see Matter of Concerned Citizens of Perinton v Town of Perinton, 261 AD2d 880 , 880 [1999], appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 1040 [1999], cert denied 529 US 1111 [2000]), we agree with respondent that the court erred in granting the petition.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Poplar Hill, Inc. v. Town of Clarence Zoning Board
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Here, the Board made its determination after considering the relevant statutory factors and weighing the benefit to petitioners against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]; Matter of DeGroote v Town of Greece Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 35 AD3d 1177, 1178 [2006]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Gidney v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Buffalo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
Here, upon our review of the record, we conclude that "the ZBA properly took into account the relevant factors set forth in [General City Law § 81-b (4)] and made detailed findings with respect to those factors, and we conclude that its determination to grant the variances is not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Campaign for Buffalo History Architecture & Culture, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Buffalo , 174 AD3d 1304 , 1306 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 912 [2020]; see Matter of DeGroote v Town of Greece Bd. of Zoning Appeals , 35 AD3d 1177, 1178 [4th …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of 16 Main St. Prop., LLC v. Village of Geneseo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
In particular, the ZBA concluded that the increase from three tenants, as permitted in a boardinghouse under the Zoning Ordinance, to eight was significant and, inter alia, would cause more noise and commotion, affect property values nearby, and lead to an increase in applications by landlords for area variances allowing for the housing of more students in smaller places ( see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig , 98 NY2d 304, 307-308 [2002]; see also Matter of DeGroote v Town of Greece Bd. of Zoning Appeals , 35 AD3d 1177 , 1178 [4th Dept 2006]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Jan DeGroote
v.
Town of Greece Board of Zoning Appeals
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 22, 2006.
35 A.D.3d 1177
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

[*1178] Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), entered October 4, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking, inter alia, a judgment annulling the determination of respondent denying the application for an area variance that would have allowed petitioner to locate his proposed adult bookstore 50 feet from a “lot on which a dwelling unit is located” rather than, as prescribed by the zoning ordinance, at least 1,000 feet from any such lot (Code of Town of Greece § 211-38 [D] [1]). At the outset, we note that, under the circumstances, petitioner is required to obtain a use variance rather than an area variance (see Matter of Hotaling v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of DeWitt, 6 AD3d 1227, 1227-1228 [2004]). In any event, we note that in considering an application for an area variance, a local zoning board is required to weigh the benefit to the applicant of granting the variance against any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community affected thereby, taking into account the five factors listed in Town Law § 267-b (3) (b) (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 307-308 [2002]). A zoning board has “broad discretion” in determining whether to grant the requested area variance (id. at 308), and judicial review is limited to deciding whether the determination of the zoning board was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion (see id.; see also Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 386 [1995]). A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board, even if there is substantial evidence supporting a contrary determination (see Matter of Homeyer v Town of Skaneateles Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 302 AD2d 941, 941-942 [2003]).

Here, respondent rendered its determination after considering the appropriate factors and properly weighing the benefit to petitioner against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variances were granted (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]; Ifrah, 98 NY2d at 309; Homeyer, 302 AD2d at 942). Moreover, the determination of respondent has a rational basis and is not illegal (see Matter of Tersigni v Village of Lynbrook Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 33 AD3d 713 [2006]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra and Pine, JJ.