variance requirement in New York

1973The Board of Appeals unanimously granted a variance to re-establish the nonconforming use and Special Term annulled that determination, holding that the appellant had not proved the unnecessary hardship required for a variance under the rule of Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber ( 282 N. Y. 71 ) and also that if there was any hardship to appellant, it was self-imposed.

1959I do not think that the proof before the Zoning Board of Appeals was adequate to warrant a variance under the rule laid down in Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber ( 282 N. Y. 71 ) as reiterated in Matter of Crossroads Recreation v. Broz (4 N Y 2d 39).

2024NYU further contends that the ZR amendment adopted, which was modified to maintain the variance requirement, violates New York law as set forth in Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi ( 68 NY2d 583 [1986]) and its progeny.

2024NYU further contends that the ZR amendment adopted, which was modified to maintain the variance requirement, violates New York law as set forth in Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi ( 68 NY2d 583 [1986]) and its progeny.

2007Here, the petitioners’ contention that the ZBA granted other area variances from the off-street parking requirement is insufficient to establish that its conduct in denying the petitioners a variance from that requirement was arbitrary or capricious, since the petitioners failed to establish that the ZBA “reach[ed] a different result on essentially the same facts” (id. at 547, citing Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 NY2d 516 [1985]; see Matter of Conversions for Real Estate, LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Roslyn, 31 AD3d 635, 636 [2006]).

2000The owner of real property subject to a variance challenge generally is a necessary party because the owner will be inequitably and adversely impacted if the zoning board decision were annulled (see, Matter of O’Connell v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 267 AD2d 742, 743 , lv denied 94 NY2d 938 ; Matter of Sopchak v Guernsey, 176 AD2d 403, 404 , supra; see also, Matter of Llana v Town of Pittstown, 234 AD2d 881 ).

2000The owner of real property subject to a variance challenge generally is a necessary party because the owner will be inequitably and adversely impacted if the zoning board decision were annulled (see, Matter of O’Connell v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 267 AD2d 742, 743 , lv denied 94 NY2d 938 ; Matter of Sopchak v Guernsey, 176 AD2d 403, 404 , supra; see also, Matter of Llana v Town of Pittstown, 234 AD2d 881 ).

2000A party who proposes to purchase and develop real property also may be a necessary party for the same reasons (see, Matter of Amodeo v Town Bd., 249 AD2d 882 ).

2000The owner of real property subject to a variance challenge generally is a necessary party because the owner will be inequitably and adversely impacted if the zoning board decision were annulled (see, Matter of O’Connell v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 267 AD2d 742, 743 , lv denied 94 NY2d 938 ; Matter of Sopchak v Guernsey, 176 AD2d 403, 404 , supra; see also, Matter of Llana v Town of Pittstown, 234 AD2d 881 ).

1992Neither has Kalikow demonstrated that the landmark designation would deprive it of a reasonable return on the use of its property (see, French Investing Co. v City of New York, 39 NY2d 587, 596 ).

1990In finding section 1-135 (b) (2) valid in Historic Albany Found. v Coyne (supra), we relied in part upon the fact that the challenged provision was also subject to being construed to afford an owner relief by way of a variance or waiver of the strict requirements of the ordinance regarding restoration or new construction after demolition.

1990Among other reasons why this petition should have been dismissed is petitioner’s failure to seek and afford the Commission an opportunity to grant a waiver or variance so that any new development ordered and approved by the Commission would yield a fair return, thus obviating Supreme Court’s constitutional concerns (see, Hodel v Virginia Surface Min. & Reclamation Assn., 452 US 264, 297 ; Penn Cent.

1989With respect to petitioner’s contention of economic hardship that forms the first prong to the variance test, I note that its bare conclusory allegations of economic calamity is insufficient to annul the determination that was made here (see, L & J Roost v Department of Consumer Affairs, 128 AD2d 677 [2d Dept 1987]).

1981Thus, in Williams v Town of Oyster Bay ( 32 NY2d 78, 81 , supra) the court expressly applied by analogy the variance rule to claims of alleged confiscation.

1959Neither does it appear on the face of the complaint that the ordinance or the Village Law authorizes a variance of the application of the general restrictions imposed, or the granting of a special exception, which would permit the use of appellant’s property for a purpose for which it is reasonably adapted, and that consequently the ordinance may not be declared unconstitutional, insofar as it affects appellant’s property until an application has been made for such a variance or exception and denied (cf. People v. Calvar Corp., 286 N. Y. 419, 421 ; Town of Cortlandt v. McNally, 282 App. Div. 1

1959When issue is joined and the facts are established, it may appear that adequate relief may be obtained under the provisions of the ordinance or the Village Law (cf. Hammond v. Town of Caldwell, 282 App. Div. 798 ).

1959Neither does it appear on the face of the complaint that the ordinance or the Village Law authorizes a variance of the application of the general restrictions imposed, or the granting of a special exception, which would permit the use of appellant’s property for a purpose for which it is reasonably adapted, and that consequently the ordinance may not be declared unconstitutional, insofar as it affects appellant’s property until an application has been made for such a variance or exception and denied (cf. People v. Calvar Corp., 286 N. Y. 419, 421 ; Town of Cortlandt v. McNally, 282 App. Div. 1

1943(Cf. Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber, supra; Matter of Levy v. Bd. of Standards & Appeals, 267 N. Y. 347, 354 .) Therefore, the defense that the action is premature, regardless of whether the defense be predicated on plaintiff’s failure to seek a change of the Zoning Resolution through the medium of a legislative amendment by the Board of Estimate or through the medium of an administrative variance by the Board of Standards and Appeals, is insufficient and must be struck out.

1940(Matter of Aronstein v. Trojan Hat Co., Inc., 245 App. Div. 151 .) Moreover, as a foreman decedent’s average weekly earnings amounted to $32.68.

1929Other cases may be cited, not so similar in their facts, and yet pointing in the same direction (Ring v. Ring, supra; De Hierapolis v. Reilly, 44 App. Div. 22; 168 N. Y. 585 ; Dunbar v. Dunbar, [1909] 2 Ch. 639; cf. Galusha v. Galusha, 116 N. Y. 635, 644, 645 , where there was divorce, not annulment).

1929Other cases may be cited, not so similar in their facts, and yet pointing in the same direction (Ring v. Ring, supra; De Hierapolis v. Reilly, 44 App. Div. 22; 168 N. Y. 585 ; Dunbar v. Dunbar, [1909] 2 Ch. 639; cf. Galusha v. Galusha, 116 N. Y. 635, 644, 645 , where there was divorce, not annulment).

1929Other cases may be cited, not so similar in their facts, and yet pointing in the same direction (Ring v. Ring, supra; De Hierapolis v. Reilly, 44 App. Div. 22; 168 N. Y. 585 ; Dunbar v. Dunbar, [1909] 2 Ch. 639; cf. Galusha v. Galusha, 116 N. Y. 635, 644, 645 , where there was divorce, not annulment).