DAG laundry applied for and was denied use and area variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals of North Hempstead (hereinafter “BZA”). DAG initiated an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, which was transferred up to the Appellate Division, Second Department. The Appellate division stated that although the proceeding was wrongly transferred, it would decide the matter in the interests of judicial economy, affirming the determinations of the BZA.
The Second Department provided that variance determinations will be upheld where they have a rational basis, and will be overturned only where the zoning board “acted illegally, arbitrarily, abused its discretion, or succumbed to generalized community opposition.” The court upheld the denial, as the court found the BZA had a rational basis and did not act in a manner requiring reversal. Given that the denial of the use variance was upheld, the court determined it was unnecessary to address the denial of the area variance.
DAG Laundry Corp v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of North Hempstead, 98 A.D.3d 740 (2nd Dep’t, Aug. 29, 2012)
The opinion can be accessed here.