Posted by: Patricia Salkin | June 28, 2009

Board Properly Denied Requested Relief for Extraordinary Hardship for Auto Dealership

When reviewing a decision of the Town Board which determined that the Petitioner’s proposed uses of the subject property were not permitted under the zoning code, and which after a hearing denied the application for extraordinary hardship relief (to wit, an extension of time in which to obtain site plan approval for a proposed open air car lot), the substantial evidence standard does not apply since the decision was made after informational public hearings as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing. The proper standard of review is whether the Board’s decision was illegal, arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Here, the Court upheld the Board’s decision as rational since the applicable zoning code did not allow the intended use, so even if the Board had granted the application for extraordinary hardship relief, the Petitioner would still not have been permitted to use the lot as an auto dealership.

Yilmaz v. Foley, 2009 WL 1694425 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 6/16/2009).

The opinion can be accessed at:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: