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: Reza SHEIBANI, appellant, v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington dated July 28, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for certain area variances as a prerequisite to the subdivision of the subject real property or, in the alternative, for relief under Town Law § 280-a excepting the subject real property from the requirement that a street or highway giving access to the structures proposed to be erected on the subject real property must be duly placed on the official map or plan of the Town of Huntington, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated February 17, 2006, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Local zoning boards have broad discretion, and judicial review of their decisions is thus limited to determining whether the zoning board's action was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d 608, 613, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404; Matter of DeCaro Capital Inv. Group, LLC v. Voekler, 32 A.D.3d 852, 821 N.Y.S.2d 610; Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 771, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98). The determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington (hereinafter the Zoning Board) to deny the petitioner's application for certain area variances, which were necessary prerequisites to a subdivision desired by the petitioner, was rational, as the record demonstrated that the proposed subdivision would result in a development which was in substantial nonconformity with the neighborhood. For the same reason, the Zoning Board had a rational basis for denying the petitioner's alternative application for relief from the requirements of Town Law § 280-a(1), which generally prohibit the issuance of a building permit unless a street or highway giving access to the relevant structure is duly placed on the Town's official map or plan, and thus generally prohibit the issuance of building permits for structures on private roads. The Zoning Board reasonably distinguished its approval of a seemingly similar application 17 months earlier (cf. Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 N.Y.2d 86, 93, 735 N.Y.S.2d 873, 761 N.E.2d 565). Thus, the Supreme Court properly declined to disturb the Zoning Board's determination.
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: May 08, 2007
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)