The difficulty of meeting the burden of proof for a use variance was demonstrated again this week. In Matter of Nemeth v. Village of Hancock Zoning Board of Appeals, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court and the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), holding that a use variance to expand a nonconforming manufacturing use in a residential district should not have been granted. In previous litigation it was determined that the facility had been illegally expanded in 2001, through an addition that expanded the manufacturing facility. Thereafter, the owner applied for and obtained a use variance. A neighboring property owner brought this Article 78 proceeding but lost in State Supreme Court.
The Appellate Divison found that both the ZBA and lower court erred. The property at issue had been used as a manufacturing facility prior to a zoning amendment in 1983, that rezoned the property to residential use. While the existing facility could continue as a legal nonconforming use, the Court found that the owner had failed to demonstrate by the required “dollars and cents proof” that the property could not provide a “reasonable return” either as a manufacturing facility, without the addition or be converted to a permitted residential use.
The Court found:
“the evidence presented at the hearing established that the addition is used to house older equipment that has been replaced by more advanced, efficient equipment. While the record is unclear as to whether the older machinery stored in the addition is still being put to productive use and contributing to the manufacturing process, no financial evidence was presented as to the profitability, if any, generated from those machines in relation to the business as a whole. Perry Kuehn’s bare conclusory statements that an additional ’10 to 20 percent’ of revenue would be needed to find a similarly sized location to house the older manufacturing equipment, and that ‘we [would] go out of business’ without the addition, are simply insufficient to constitute the requisite “dollars and cents” proof necessary to demonstrate an inability to realize a reasonable return…”
The Court went on the address the fact that the record was inadequate to determine if the property could be converted to a permitted residential use. The Court further noted that the question of conversion to a residential use related to the entire property, not just the addition.
” no evidence was presented as to the financial implications of converting the entire property to residential use, which is a use permitted in that zone. While financial evidence was presented on the cost of converting the addition to a residential use…The fact that respondents’ application for a use variance was limited to the addition is of no moment; the inquiry as to an inability to realize a reasonable return may not be segmented to examine less than all of an owner’s property rights subject to a regulatory regime…”