five statutory factors in New York

2019In applying the balancing test set forth in Town Law § 267-b(3)(b), a zoning board need not justify its determination with supporting evidence with respect to each of the five statutory factors as long as its ultimate determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational ( see Matter of Harris v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Carmel , 137 AD3d 1130, 1131 ; Matter of Petikas v Baranello , 78 AD3d 713, 714 ).

2016The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational (see Matter of Petikas v Baranello, 78 AD3d 713, 714 [2010]; Matter of King v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 68 AD3d 1113 [2009]).

2016The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational (see Matter of Petikas v Baranello, 78 AD3d 713, 714 [2010]; Matter of King v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 68 AD3d 1113 [2009]).

2015The zoning board, in applying the *1219 balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors, as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational (see Matter of Petikas v Baranello, 78 AD3d 713, 714 [2010]; Matter of King v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 68 AD3d 1113, 1115 [2009]).

2025As to the first factor, respondent noted that "there are no other similar structures which exceed the height of the principal structure in that neighborhood." In our view, this reflects respondent's consideration of its local zoning code and whether granting the instant variance would lead to an undesirable change in this neighborhood, as it would set a precedent which permits accessory structures to exceed the height of the principal building ( see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead , 2 NY3d at 615 ; Matter of Cowan v Kern , 41 NY2d at 599; Matter of Hoots v Town of Ro

2008Finally, in making its determination whether to grant the area variances, the ZBA was required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the proposed benefit to respondents against the possible detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community (see Town Law § 267-b [3]), as well as consider the five statutory factors enumerated in Town Law § 267-b (3) (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 612-613 [2004]; Matter of North Country Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v Town of Potsdam Planning Bd., 39 AD3d 1098, 1101 [2007]).

2020The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors, as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational ( see Matter of Traendly v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southold , 127 AD3d at 1218-1219 ; Matter of Merlotto v Town of Patterson Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 43 AD3d 926, 929 ).

2018"The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors, as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational" ( Matter of Traendly v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southold , 127 AD3d 1218, 1218-1219 ; see Matter of Merlotto v Town of Patterson Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 43 AD3d 926, 929 ).

2021The administrative record and the ZBA's formal return in the CPLR article 78 proceeding establish that the ZBA considered the five statutory factors, including whether the alleged difficulty was self-created ( see Matter of Fund for Lake George, Inc. v Town of Queensbury Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 126 AD3d 1152, 1154 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1039 [2015]; Matter of Ohrenstein v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Canaan , 39 AD3d 1041, 1043 [3d Dept 2007]).

2015Despite that failing in the resolution, we need not annul the determination or remit the matter if the record, including the ZBA’s formal return in the CPLR article 78 proceeding, “demonstrates that the ZBA did make specific factual findings supporting its determination” (Matter of Ohrenstein v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Canaan, 39 AD3d 1041, 1043 [2007]; see Matter of Iwan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Amsterdam, 252 AD2d 913, 914 [1998]).

2013Probst Family Trust v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Horicon, 79 AD3d 1427, 1428 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 708 [2011], quoting Matter of Friends of the Shawangunks, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Gardiner, 56 AD3d 883, 886 [2008]).

2013Probst Family Trust v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Horicon, 79 AD3d 1427, 1428 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 708 [2011], quoting Matter of Friends of the Shawangunks, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Gardiner, 56 AD3d 883, 886 [2008]).

2010Accordingly, that issue may not be raised in this CPLR article 78 proceeding (see Matter of Henry v Wetzler, 82 NY2d 859, 862 [1993], cert denied 511 US 1126 [1994]; Matter of Showers v Town of Poestenkill Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 56 AD3d 1108 , 1109 [2008]). * Turning to the denial of the application for an area variance itself, respondent “was required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the proposed benefit to [petitioner] against the possible detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, as well as consider the five statutory factors enumerated in Town Law § 267-b (3)” (M

2008Finally, in making its determination whether to grant the area variances, the ZBA was required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the proposed benefit to respondents against the possible detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community (see Town Law § 267-b [3]), as well as consider the five statutory factors enumerated in Town Law § 267-b (3) (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 612-613 [2004]; Matter of North Country Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v Town of Potsdam Planning Bd., 39 AD3d 1098, 1101 [2007]).

2026"The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational" ( Matter of Kramer v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton , 131 AD3d 1170, 1172).

2026"The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational" ( Matter of Kramer v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton , 131 AD3d 1170, 1172 ).

2023"The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational" ( Matter of Humphreys v Somers Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 206 AD3d 1000 , 1002 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro , 192 AD3d 805, 807-808 ).

2022"The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational" ( Matter of Humphreys v Somers Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 206 AD3d 1000 , 1002 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro , 192 AD3d 805, 807-808 ).

2009The record indicates that the ZBA’s determination to grant the variance has a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Gonzalez v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Putnam Val., 3 AD3d 496 [2004]; Matter of Easy Home Program v Trotta, 276 AD2d 553 [2000]).

2008The record indicates that the ZBA’s determination to grant the variance has a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Gonzalez v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Putnam Val., 3 AD3d 496, 497 [2004]; Matter of Easy Home Program v Trotta, 276 AD2d 553 [2000]).

2025Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the record reflects that the Board engaged in the requisite balancing of interests and considered the appropriate factors pursuant to Village Law § 7-712-b(3)(b) in determining the petitioner's application, and the Board's determination had a rational basis and was supported by the record ( see Matter of Seaview Assn. of Fire Is., NY, Inc. v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 221 AD3d 717, 718-719 ; Matter of Bonadonna v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Upper Brookville , 220 AD3d at 857 ).

2025Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the record reflects that the Board engaged in the requisite balancing of interests and considered the appropriate factors pursuant to Village Law § 7-712-b(3)(b) in determining the petitioner's application, and the Board's determination had a rational basis and was supported by the record ( see Matter of Seaview Assn. of Fire Is., NY, Inc. v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 221 AD3d 717, 718-719; Matter of Bonadonna v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Upper Brookville , 220 AD3d at 857).

2025Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the record reflects that the Board engaged in the requisite balancing of interests and considered the appropriate factors pursuant to Village Law § 7-712-b(3)(b) in determining the petitioner's application, and the Board's determination had a rational basis and was supported by the record ( see Matter of Seaview Assn. of Fire Is., NY, Inc. v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 221 AD3d 717, 718-719 ; Matter of Bonadonna v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Upper Brookville , 220 AD3d at 857 ).

2025Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the record reflects that the Board engaged in the requisite balancing of interests and considered the appropriate factors pursuant to Village Law § 7-712-b(3)(b) in determining the petitioner's application, and the Board's determination had a rational basis and was supported by the record ( see Matter of Seaview Assn. of Fire Is., NY, Inc. v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 221 AD3d 717, 718-719; Matter of Bonadonna v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Upper Brookville , 220 AD3d at 857).

2021The administrative record and the ZBA's formal return in the CPLR article 78 proceeding establish that the ZBA considered the five statutory factors, including whether the alleged difficulty was self-created ( see Matter of Fund for Lake George, Inc. v Town of Queensbury Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 126 AD3d 1152, 1154 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1039 [2015]; Matter of Ohrenstein v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Canaan , 39 AD3d 1041, 1043 [3d Dept 2007]).