From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Armonas v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1998
246 A.D.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

January 26, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners are the contract vendees of a lot in the Village of Lloyd Harbor lying in a "flood plain" district (land within the village which is less than 12 feet above mean sea level). The petitioners sought a use variance to allow them to fill a portion of the lot to create a buildable area which would qualify for a special permit allowing them to construct a residence ( see, Village of Lloyd Harbor Zoning Code § 205-8 et seq.; see also, Matter of Armonas v. Pratt, 138 A.D.2d 697). However, Village Law § 7-712-b (2) (b) provides that a use variance shall not be granted unless the applicant demonstrates "(1) [that he or she] cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that the lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence; (2) that the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; (3) that the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and (4) that the alleged hardship has not been self-created" ( see also, Matter of King v. Ronik, 237 A.D.2d 358). The Village of Lloyd Harbor Zoning Code also provides that a variance shall only be issued upon a determination that the failure to grant it would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant (Village of Lloyd Harbor Zoning Code § 205-28 [B] [5] [b]).

Here, the petitioners failed to submit proof of any hardship. Inasmuch as their contract to purchase the premises was expressly conditioned upon them obtaining all necessary approvals with respect to the development of the premises with a single-family dwelling, the denial of the variance imposed no hardship ( see, Matter of Ferruggia v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 233 A.D.2d 505).

In light of this determination, the petitioners' remaining contentions are academic.

O'Brien, J.P., Krausman, Florio and Lerner, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Armonas v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1998
246 A.D.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Armonas v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ALEX ARMONAS et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF ZONING…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 26, 1998

Citations

246 A.D.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
667 N.Y.S.2d 319

Citing Cases

Madonia v. Board of Zoning Appeals

nation of a zoning board will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial…

In re Madonia v. Bd. of Zoning of Lindenhurst

ard will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of…