New York Zoning And Municipal Law Blog

An appellate court upheld a decision finding that a proposed in-ground swimming pool does not violate a restrictive covenant. In Kemp v. Village of Scarsdale the Appellate Division held “the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the plain language of the restrictive covenant at issue did not reveal an intent to preclude her proposed use of the property.”

The Court noted:

“Since the law favors the free and unobstructed use of real property, a restrictive covenant must be strictly construed against those seeking to enforce it, and may not be given an interpretation extending beyond the clear meaning of its terms (see Witter v Taggart, 78 NY2d 234, 237-238; Wechsler v Gasparrini, 40 AD3d 976; Liebowitz v Forman, 22 AD3d 530, 531; Kaufman v Fass, 302 AD2d 497, 498, cert denied 540 US 1162 ).”

A court denied a use variance to conduct a motorcycle sales operation at a location which previously obtained a use variance to operate an antique furniture store. In Matter of 194 Main Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals for Town of North Hempstead, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of a use variance, finding that the property owner had a self created hardship due to the fact that he purchased the property for a commercial use when he knew it was zoned for residential use. Further, the court held “the fact that a use variance was granted to the prior owner for the use of an antique furniture store could not have lead to a reasonable expectation by the petitioner that it could operate a motorcycle sales, storage, and display store under the prior use variance.”

The court, in quoting the case of Matter of Miller Family Ltd. Partnership v Trotta (23 AD3d 389, 389-390) reiterated the criteria for obtaining a use variance in New York stating:

“there must be a showing that (1) the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for permitted purposes as currently zoned, (2) the hardship resulted from unique characteristics of the property, (3) the proposed use would not alter the character of the neighborhood, and (4) the alleged hardship was not self-created.”

In a decision issued today, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and found that a non-conforming mining operation had attained vested rights in that use. In Glacial Aggregates LLC v. Town of Yorkshire, the Court concluded that the expense of the permitting process, coupled with taking forty truck loads of material for testing, removal of timber and surveying a road and mining areas was sufficient to establish a vested right to the use and manifest an intent to mine the area.

At the time that the property owner began the process of obtaining a DEC permit for mining the Town had no zoning ordinance. It was only after the DEC permit was issued that the Town enacted zoning which prohibited the use. The property owner then claimed it had obtained vested rights to the non-conforming use. The trial court found in favor of the property owner and the Town appealed.

We previously reported on the decision of the Appellate Division in this case noting in an April 27, 2009 post that the court found these activities did not constitute actual mining but rather the “activities were performed merely in contemplation of mining.” Further, testimony at trial demonstrated that mining could not take place until certain additional work, including paving of a “haul road” were completed. As there was no proof that the property was actually being used for commercial mining, the court found the lower court erred in not issuing a directed verdict that the mining operation was not a legal non-conforming use.

The Appellate Division ruled that a zoning board of appeals need not justify the denial of an area variance under all five factors in the balancing test established by Town Law. In Matter of King v/ Town of Islip Zoning Board of Appeals the court upheld the denial of an area variance for a swimming pool finding that there was a rational basis for the decision of the board. The case involved a request to place a pool on a lot which did not meet the Town’s zoning requirement that a lot have at least 12,000 square feet before a pool can be constructed.

In reversing the Supreme Court decision the Appellate Division found the Supreme Court had erred. Quoting its own recent deciion in Matter of Genser v Board of Zoning and Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 65 AD3d 1144 (2d Dept. 2009) the court noted “‘the Zoning Board is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence with respect to each of the five [statutory] factors, so long as its ultimate determination balancing the relevant considerations was rational….'”

Most significantly the court rejected the argument that the variance should be granted because even though the lot did not meet the minimum 12,000 square foot lot area the pool could still be placed in a manner which meets the set back requirements of the ordinance. The court found “petitioners’ primary argument was that, because the proposed pool would meet the relevant property setback requirements, it would have no greater impact than would a pool on a standard lot. However, the ZBA properly rejected this argument, as granting the application on this basis alone would render meaningless the Town Board’s legislative decision to limit above-ground swimming pools as of right to lots not less than 12,000 square feet….”