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: GABRIELLE REALTY CORP., respondent, v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of Freeport, dated October 15, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for certain area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated March 12, 2004, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed that the variances be issued.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof directing that the variances be issued, and substituting therefor a provision remitting the matter to the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of Freeport for a new determination and to set forth findings of fact in accordance herewith; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“Conclusory findings of fact are insufficient to support a determination by a zoning board of appeals, which is required to clearly set forth ‘how’ and ‘in what manner’ the granting of a variance would be improper” (Matter of Farrell v. Board of Zoning & Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Old Westbury, 77 A.D.2d 875, 876, 431 N.Y.S.2d 52; see also Human Dev. Servs. of Port Chester v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Port Chester, 110 A.D.2d 135, 493 N.Y.S.2d 481, affd. 67 N.Y.2d 702, 499 N.Y.S.2d 927, 490 N.E.2d 846; Matter of Tobin v. Board of Zoning & Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Manorhaven, 295 A.D.2d 524, 744 N.Y.S.2d 449). The Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of Freeport (hereinafter the Board) failed to set forth the specific factual support in the record upon which it relied in denying the petitioner's application for area variances. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Board so that it may set forth factual findings in proper form, including a discussion of all five requirements set forth in Village Law § 7-712-b(3) (see Matter of Morrone v. Bennett, 164 A.D.2d 887, 559 N.Y.S.2d 565; Leibring v. Planning Bd. of Town of Newfane, 144 A.D.2d 903, 534 N.Y.S.2d 236; Matter of Greene v. Johnson, 121 A.D.2d 632, 503 N.Y.S.2d 656; Matter of Kadish v. Simpson, 55 A.D.2d 911, 390 N.Y.S.2d 450).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 12, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 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)