Posted by: Patricia Salkin | June 13, 2017

NY Appellate Court Upholds Grant of Special Permit and Site Plan Approval for Lodging Facility

Petitioner challenged the development, by the respondent Rhinebeck Village Place, of a lodging facility on a lot owned by the respondent Mirbeau of Rhinebeck, LLC, which was adjacent to the petitioner’s hotel. The petitioner sought to invalidate the issuance of a negative declaration of adverse environmental impact pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), an area variance relieving the applicant from the 5–foot maximum front-yard setback requirement of section 120–8 of the Village of Rhinebeck Zoning Law, and site plan and special permit approvals for the project. The area variance was of 296.7 feet to permit a front-yard setback of approximately 302 feet. The amended petition alleged that the project failed to comport with the Village Center principles pursuant to section 120–19 of the Village of Rhinebeck Zoning Law and would have a negative impact on the character of the community. The Supreme Court denied the amended petition and dismissed the proceeding.

On appeal, the petitioner argued that the Village of Rhinebeck Planning Board erred in determining that the project would not result in the creation of a material conflict with the community’s current plans or goals. Here, the Planning Board found that the project would not result in the creation of a material conflict with the community’s current plans or goals as officially approved or adopted and that the project “would not result in the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources or existing community or neighborhood character.” The court found that the record established that the review conducted by the Planning Board comported with the procedural and substantive requirements of SEQRA. While the area variance was substantial, there was no evidence that granting the variance would: produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood; have an adverse effect or impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; that the benefit to the applicant could be achieved by other means; or that the applicant’s difficulty was self-created. As such, the court held that the Supreme Court properly denied the amended petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Beekman Delamater Properties, LLC v Village of Rhinebeck Zoning Board of Appeals, 2017 WL 2260271 (NYAD 2 Dept. 5/24/2017)


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: