Respondent was granted area variances to allow the subdivision of a parcel into two substandard lots to relocate a single-family residence currently located mid-parcel on one lot, and to construct a new single-family residence on the other. Petitioners appealed, alleging that the granting of the variances was arbitrary and capricious since the board failed to properly distinguish the application from a substantially similar prior application for the same parcel that was denied three years earlier.
Noting that boards must adhere to their own precedent unless they provide a rational explanation for reaching a different result based on similar facts, the Court held that it was within the Board’s discretion to determine whether modifications to the application as submitted presented changed facts or circumstances. The Court said that the Board did note several differences between the applications including modifications to the location of the two dwellings, an increase in side yard distances, preservation of a mature tree, and an agreement to a restrictive covenant that would keep the homes owner-occupied with no accessory apartments. Therefore, the Court held that the board of appeals acted rationally and did not abuse their discretion in approving the applications.
Waidler v. Young, 63 A.D.3d 953, 882 N.Y.S.2d 153 (2 Dept. 6/16/2009).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2009/D23552.pdf
