HAMPTON HILL VILLAS CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS v. TOWN OF AMHERST ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (2004)

 Respondents Town of Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals and its members (collectively, ZBA) and Ciminelli Development Company, Inc. (Ciminelli) appeal from a judgment in petitioners' CPLR article 78 proceedings that annulled the ZBA's determination that an existing shared driveway on property that Ciminelli sought to rezone did not also require rezoning.   The Commissioner of Building of the Town of Amherst determined that the driveway need not be included as part of the application to rezone the property from the Community Facilities (CF) classification to the Office Building (OB) classification because the use of the driveway was shared by an existing business that would remain in its current CF classification and the use of the driveway by that business would otherwise become nonconforming.   On appeal, the ZBA upheld that determination.  “Under a zoning ordinance which authorizes interpretation of its requirements by the board of appeals, specific application of a term of the ordinance to a particular property is ․ governed by the board's interpretation, unless unreasonable or irrational” (Matter of Frishman v. Schmidt, 61 N.Y.2d 823, 825, 473 N.Y.S.2d 957, 462 N.E.2d 134;  see Matter of J.H., Jr., & E.T., Sr. Wurz Realty Partnership v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of N.Y. Mills, 249 A.D.2d 984, 985, 672 N.Y.S.2d 557, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 813, 680 N.Y.S.2d 906, 703 N.E.2d 764;  Matter of Saglibene v. Baum, 246 A.D.2d 599, 600, 668 N.Y.S.2d 39).   Here, the ZBA's interpretation of the zoning ordinance is neither unreasonable nor irrational, and we therefore reverse the judgment and dismiss the petitions.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petitions are dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: