Posted by: Patricia Salkin | January 1, 2011

Court Upholds Denial of Area Variance Finding Among other Things, Other Means to Obtain Goal

Rossney claimed that the ZBA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying requested area variance and that the ZBA failed to apply the statutory balancing test required by state statute. The appeals court found that the ZBA properly balanced the benefit to the petitioner against the impact on the neighborhood, and it was well within their discretion to deny the area variance. The Court noted that the variance sought would subdivide the property into sub-standard lots, which was a substantial variance, that the difficulty was self created, that if the variance was granted there would be “an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood,” that there would be adverse impacts on the environmental aspects of the neighborhood, and lastly, that there are other means to obtain the petitioner’s goal. Therefore, the petitioner’s claims were without merit . 

Rossney v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Ossining, 2010 WL 5094740 (N.Y. A. D. 2 Dep’t, 12/ 14/2010)

The opinion can be accessed at:  http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_09278.htm


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: