NY Appellate Court Upholds Area Variances for Pet Boarding Facility

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

Respondents Matt Sames and Pet Lodges, Inc. owned real property comprised of six contiguous parcels in the City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County. Approximately 285 feet of the westerly portion of the property was located within the Tourist Related Business District, and the remaining 359 feet was located within the Rural Residential District. In 2016, the applicants submitted an application to respondent Steve Shaw, the City’s Zoning and Building Inspector, which sought approval of the proposed construction of a pet boarding facility on the property. Shaw denied the application on the ground that the proposed project required area variances for certain setback requirements. The applicants then applied to respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Saratoga Springs for the required area variances. Petitioners, owners of a neighboring parcel of property, submitted letters to the ZBA opposing the application on the basis that the proposed project required a use variance and that the applicants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to an area variance. The ZBA granted the requested area variances, and Petitioners commenced an article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the ZBA’s determination. The Supreme Court of New York dismissed the petition, and petitioners appealed.

Under the City’s relevant zoning ordinance, animal kennels are permitted in districts zoned as Rural Residential, but are prohibited in Tourist Related Business districts. The zoning ordinance further provides that where a zoning district boundary line divides a lot or land in single ownership as existing at the time of this enactment, “the district requirements on either side of the boundary may be construed, at the property owner’s option, as extending into the remaining portion of the property for a distance not exceeding 100 feet.” Here, the applicants chose to extend the boundary of the Rural Residential District 100 feet to the west. Consequently, the animal kennel would be located entirely on the portion of the property within the Rural Residential District, where it was an expressly permitted use. Accordingly, the court held that the ZBA’s determination that only area variances were required for the proposed project was both rational and supported by the record.

The court next found that the record also supported the ZBA’s conclusion that the proposed variance would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Here, the subject property was surrounded by other commercial establishments and would be minimally visible from the road. Additionally, the existing building envelopment was too small to construct a usable building and there were no feasible means to expand the property through land acquisition or other alternatives. Furthermore, the ZBA found that the potable water and sanitary sewer requirements could be met and relied on letters submitted by neighbors of other Pet Lodge kennels indicating that there would not be “excess noise, smell or the presence of loose dogs.” For these aforementioned reasons, the court held that the ZBA properly applied the balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors, and that its decision to grant the area variances was not irrational, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion.

Wen Mei Lu v City of Saratoga Springs, 2018 WL 2973744 (NYAD 3 Dept. 6/17/2018)