required balancing test in New York

2015In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a zoning board is required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]; see also Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d at 612 ; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 307-308 [2002]) Here, the Zoning Board engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of App

2015In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a zoning board is required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]; see also Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d at 612 ; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 307-308 [2002]) Here, the Zoning Board engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of App

2010Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Islip (hereinafter the ZBA) engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]).

2010Contrary to the petitioners’ contentions, the ZBA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]; Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]).

2022Here, the ZBA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors ( see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead , 2 NY3d 608 ).

2021Here, the record demonstrates that the Board engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors ( see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead , 2 NY3d 608, 614 ; Matter of FNR Home Const. Corp v Downs , 57 AD3d at 542 ). "[A] zoning board's interpretation of its zoning ordinance is entitled to great deference and will not be overturned by the courts unless unreasonable or irrational" ( Matter of 7-Eleven, Inc. v Town of Huntington , 140 AD3d 889, 890 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Gray v Village of Patchogue , 164 AD3d 587

2007Contrary to the petitioners’ contentions, in denying their ap plication for a variance from Village of Greenwood Lake Zoning Code § 120-18 (C) (2) to permit them to build on slopes in excess of 25% the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Greenwood Lake engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors, and its determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious (see Village Law § 7-712-b [3]; Matter of Berk v McMahon, supra at 903; Matter of Rivero v Ferraro, supra at 480; see also Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra; Matter of Sasso v O

2006The ZBA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors, and its determination to grant the area variance had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, supra; Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, supra; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra at 308-309; Matter of Martino v Board of Zoning Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Great Neck Plaza, supra; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, supra; Matter of Peconic Shores Dev. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, supra).

2015In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a zoning board is required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]; see also Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d at 612 ; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 307-308 [2002]) Here, the Zoning Board engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of App

2015In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a zoning board is required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]; see also Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d at 612 ; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 307-308 [2002]) Here, the Zoning Board engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of App

2021Here, the record demonstrates that the ZBA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors ( see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead , 2 NY3d 608, 614 ; Matter of Goodman v City of Long Beach , 128 AD3d at 1065 ).

2019Here, the BZA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors ( see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead , 2 NY3d 608 ; Matter of Goodman v City of Long Beach , 128 AD3d 1064, 1065 ).

2021Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, the Board's interpretation of the Village Code that the addition of two units within the subject building constituted an "intensification," and, as a consequence, the building had to comply with the parking regulations as set forth in the Village Code, was "neither irrational, unreasonable, nor inconsistent with the governing statute," and therefore must be upheld ( Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle , 24 AD3d at 774 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2006The ZBA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors, and its determination to grant the area variance had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, supra; Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, supra; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra at 308-309; Matter of Martino v Board of Zoning Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Great Neck Plaza, supra; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, supra; Matter of Peconic Shores Dev. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, supra).

2019While the alleged difficulty was partly self-created, there was no evidence that granting the variances would have an undesirable effect on the character of the neighborhood, adversely impact physical and environmental conditions, or otherwise result in a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community ( see Matter of Quintana v Board of Zoning Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Muttontown , 120 AD3d 1248, 1249 ; Matter of Daneri v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Southold , 98 AD3d 508 , 510).

2018While the proposed variances were substantial and the alleged difficulty was self-created, there was no evidence that granting the variances would have an undesirable effect on the character of the neighborhood, adversely impact physical and environmental conditions, or otherwise result in a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community ( see Matter of Quintana v Board of Zoning Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Muttontown , 120 AD3d 1248, 1249 ; Matter of Daneri v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Southold , 98 AD3d 508 , 510).

2015While we agree with the petitioner that the proposed variances were substantial (see Matter of Bull Run Props., LLC v Town of Cornwall Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 50 AD3d 683 [2008]; Matter of Cortland LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Roslyn Estates, 21 AD3d 371 [2005]; Matter of McGlasson Realty v Town of Patterson Bd. of Appeals, 234 AD2d 462, 463 [1996]), and that the alleged difficulty was self-created (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d at 309 ; Matter of Padwee v Bronnes, 242 AD2d 334, 335 [1997]), there was no evidence that the granting of the variance would produce an undesirable

2015While we agree with the petitioner that the proposed variances were substantial (see Matter of Bull Run Props., LLC v Town of Cornwall Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 50 AD3d 683 [2008]; Matter of Cortland LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Roslyn Estates, 21 AD3d 371 [2005]; Matter of McGlasson Realty v Town of Patterson Bd. of Appeals, 234 AD2d 462, 463 [1996]), and that the alleged difficulty was self-created (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d at 309 ; Matter of Padwee v Bronnes, 242 AD2d 334, 335 [1997]), there was no evidence that the granting of the variance would produce an undesirable

2015While we agree with the petitioner that the proposed variances were substantial (see Matter of Bull Run Props., LLC v Town of Cornwall Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 50 AD3d 683 [2008]; Matter of Cortland LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Roslyn Estates, 21 AD3d 371 [2005]; Matter of McGlasson Realty v Town of Patterson Bd. of Appeals, 234 AD2d 462, 463 [1996]), and that the alleged difficulty was self-created (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d at 309 ; Matter of Padwee v Bronnes, 242 AD2d 334, 335 [1997]), there was no evidence that the granting of the variance would produce an undesirable

2015While we agree with the petitioner that the proposed variances were substantial (see Matter of Bull Run Props., LLC v Town of Cornwall Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 50 AD3d 683 [2008]; Matter of Cortland LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Roslyn Estates, 21 AD3d 371 [2005]; Matter of McGlasson Realty v Town of Patterson Bd. of Appeals, 234 AD2d 462, 463 [1996]), and that the alleged difficulty was self-created (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d at 309 ; Matter of Padwee v Bronnes, 242 AD2d 334, 335 [1997]), there was no evidence that the granting of the variance would produce an undesirable

2010The ZBA’s findings that the requested variances were substantial, would result in a detriment to nearby properties, and would have an adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions in the surrounding neighborhood were supported by hearing testimony and documentary evidence (see Matter of DiPaolo v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town/Vil. of Harrison, 62 AD3d 792, 793 [2009]).

2010The BZA’s findings that the requested variances were substantial, would result in a detriment to nearby properties, would have an adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions in the surrounding neighborhood, and that the benefit sought by the petitioner could be achieved by an alternative feasible method other than the requested variances, were supported by hearing testimony and documentary evidence (see Matter of Monroe Beach, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, N.Y., 71 AD3d at 1151 ; Matter of DiPaolo v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town/Vil. of Harrison, 62 AD3d 7

2006The ZBA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors, and its determination to grant the area variance had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, supra; Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, supra; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra at 308-309; Matter of Martino v Board of Zoning Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Great Neck Plaza, supra; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, supra; Matter of Peconic Shores Dev. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, supra).

2005The ZBA engaged in the required balancing test, and the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to annul its determination (see Village Law § 7-712-b [3] [b]; Matter of Peconic Shores Dev. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, supra).

2024Here, the ZBA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors ( see Matter of Fowlkes v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead , 52 AD3d 711, 712-713 ; Matter of David Park Estates v Trotta , 283 AD2d 429, 430 ).

2023Here, the record demonstrates that the ZBA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors in granting the area variance relating to Hotel A ( see Matter of Fowlkes v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead , 52 AD3d 711, 712 ).

2021Here, the record demonstrates that the Board engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors ( see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead , 2 NY3d 608, 614 ; Matter of FNR Home Const. Corp v Downs , 57 AD3d at 542 ). "[A] zoning board's interpretation of its zoning ordinance is entitled to great deference and will not be overturned by the courts unless unreasonable or irrational" ( Matter of 7-Eleven, Inc. v Town of Huntington , 140 AD3d 889, 890 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Gray v Village of Patchogue , 164 AD3d 587

2009Corp. v Downs, 57 AD3d 540, 542 [2008]; Matter of Vette Realty, Inc. v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Val.

2020Here, the record demonstrates that the ZBA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors ( see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead , 2 NY3d at 614 ; Matter of Roberts v Wright , 70 AD3d at 1041 ).

2020Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the ZBA's determination that the introduction of a substandard lot was detrimental to, and would cause an undesirable change in, the character of the neighborhood, which was characterized by oversize lots, had a rational basis ( see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead , 2 NY3d at 614 ; Matter of Roberts v Wright , 70 AD3d at 1041 ), and the ZBA was entitled to consider the effect its decision would have as a precedent ( see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead , 2 NY3d at 615 ; Matter of Gallo v Rosell , 52

2007Contrary to the petitioners’ contentions, in denying their ap plication for a variance from Village of Greenwood Lake Zoning Code § 120-18 (C) (2) to permit them to build on slopes in excess of 25% the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Greenwood Lake engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors, and its determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious (see Village Law § 7-712-b [3]; Matter of Berk v McMahon, supra at 903; Matter of Rivero v Ferraro, supra at 480; see also Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra; Matter of Sasso v O

2006The ZBA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors, and its determination to grant the area variances had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Town Law § 267-b; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 307-308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 382 [1995]; Matter of Pasceri v Gabriele, 29 AD3d 805 [2006]; Matter of Sautner v Amster, 284 AD2d 540 [2001]).

2023Here, the BZA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors ( see Matter of Foster v DeChance , 210 AD3d at 1087 ; Matter of Massian v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven , 210 AD3d 984, 986 ).

2023The evidence before the BZA supported its determination that the petitioner's proposed subdivision and requested variances would not conform to the established pattern of development and would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood ( see Matter of Foster v DeChance , 210 AD3d at 1087; Matter of Massian v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven , 210 AD3d at 986; Matter of Estate of Stelling v Gaudioso , 204 AD3d 788, 790 ).

2023Here, the BZA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors ( see Matter of Foster v DeChance , 210 AD3d at 1087 ; Matter of Massian v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven , 210 AD3d 984, 986 ).

2023The evidence before the BZA supported its determination that the petitioner's proposed subdivision and requested variances would not conform to the established pattern of development and would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood ( see Matter of Foster v DeChance , 210 AD3d at 1087; Matter of Massian v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven , 210 AD3d at 986; Matter of Estate of Stelling v Gaudioso , 204 AD3d 788, 790 ).