NY Appellate Court Agrees that New Condition on Special Use Permit Renewal Lacked a Rational Basis

This post was authored by Mykhaylo Tsepukh, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Touro Law Center

Zoning boards have the authority to impose reasonable conditions and restrictions related to proposed property use to minimize adverse impacts (see Matter of St. Onge v Donovan, 71 NY2d 507, 515-516, 522 N.E.2d 1019, 527 N.Y.S2d 721). However, conditions deemed unreasonable or improper may be annulled (see Matter of Rendely v Town of Huntington, 44 AD3d 864. 865, 843 N.Y.S.2d 668).

In this case, the Planning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck imposed a new condition (Condition Number 8) on the auto dealership’s special use permit renewal, requiring the dealership to provide documentation proving its right to use an adjacent parking lot owned by a third party within 90 days. The dealership challenged this condition pursuant to CPLR article 78.

The Supreme Court granted the dealership’s petition, annulling the Planning Board’s determination that the dealership had failed to satisfy condition number 8. The Planning Board appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision, noting that the condition imposed by the Planning Board was unreasonable and improper. The court determined that there was no rational basis to require the dealership to resolve the legal uncertainty regarding the landlord’s ownership of the parking area to satisfy the condition. Therefore, the application of the condition was arbitrary and capricious. The Court concluded that the Supreme Court properly granted the petition to annul the Planning Board’s determination.

Matter of Pepe Porsche of Larchmont v Planning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck, 216 A.D.3d 1163, 191 N.Y.S.3d 418 (2 Dept. 2023)