Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: 550 HALSTEAD CORP., Appellant, v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN/VILLAGE OF HARRISON et al., Respondents.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Because nonconforming uses are viewed as detrimental to zoning schemes, public policy favors their reasonable restriction and eventual elimination (see Matter of Toys “R” Us v. Silva, 89 N.Y.2d 411, 417, 654 N.Y.S.2d 100, 676 N.E.2d 862 [1996] ). Accordingly, municipalities may adopt measures regulating nonconforming uses and may, in a reasonable fashion, eliminate them (see Matter of Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. Weise, 51 N.Y.2d 278, 287 [1980] ). Here, one of the purposes of the Town of Harrison's Comprehensive Zoning Plan is to promote the “gradual elimination of nonconforming uses” (Town of Harrison Code § 235-2[F] ). To carry out this purpose, the Code prohibits the expansion, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, or structural alteration of any nonconforming use “by any means or in any respect whatsoever” (Town of Harrison Code § 235-52).
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town/Village of Harrison (ZBA) determined that when petitioner replaced its wooden pallet storage system with steel-frame storage racks, it impermissibly expanded or extended its nonconforming lumberyard. Substantial record evidence supports this determination: the new racks were significantly higher than the wooden pallets and could store three times the lumber; petitioner installed four additional racks; unlike the wooden pallets, the racks have roofs. Further, the ZBA's denial of petitioner's application for use and area variances was rational; the ZBA properly balanced benefits to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood (Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384 n. 2, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254 [1995] ).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
MEMORANDUM.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO and READ concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 23, 2003
Court: Court of Appeals of New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)