NY Appellate Court Concludes the ZBA Properly Granted Area Variances for Indoor Squash Court

This post was authored by Olena Botshteyn, Esq.

In April 2017, 8 Bayberry Rd, LLC submitted an application for area variances to the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) of the Incorporated Village of Bellport. The variances were required to convert a three-car garage into an indoor squash court. The ZBA approved the application, and the petitioners, who are the owners of the adjacent property commenced an action to annul the ZBA determination. The Supreme Court then transferred the case to the court of appeals, having erroneously concluded that there was a substantial evidence issue.

The court determined that the ZBA made a proper decision as to the type of variances required. As the variances related to an “area” of the property, specifically, the garage, area variances were required. Use variances would be required only if the proposed use – an indoor squash court – would be a nonconforming use under the Village Code, which it is not. The court then concluded that the ZBA decision to grant the variances was not illegal, arbitrary or capricious, since the record showed that the ZBA properly exercised the required balancing test, and determined that the variances were not substantial, the alleged difficulty was not self-created, and that the benefit to the applicant outweighed the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. The court thus dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

Abramovitz v Zoning Board of Appeals of Incorporated Village of Bellport, 2021 WL 1899909 (NYAD 2 Dept. 5/12/2021)