From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Segal v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 11, 1993
191 A.D.2d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

March 11, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Sullivan County.


In 1981 petitioner and her husband purchased a 75-foot by 100-foot lot in the Town of Bethel, Sullivan County. The lot was improved by a seasonal dwelling. Sometime thereafter petitioner began to winterize the premises so that the dwelling could be used as a year-round residence by herself and her three children. In 1989 a new septic system was installed on the property. Petitioner contends that the contractor who installed the system obtained a permit, but respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Bethel (hereinafter respondent) contends that no permit was issued. In any event, it is undisputed that the septic system does not meet the 10-foot property line setback requirement, and petitioner's engineer conceded that the system only has approximately 70% of the absorption area required for a two-bedroom house. According to petitioner, the house has three bedrooms.

In September 1991, petitioner's application to install a drilled well on the premises was denied by the Town's Building Inspector because the proposed well site did not meet the required 100-foot separation from the septic system. Petitioner thereafter applied to respondent for a variance from the 100-foot separation requirement. After hearings and consideration of various materials submitted by petitioner and her engineer, respondent denied the application, resulting in this proceeding by petitioner.

The local zoning board has discretion in considering applications for variances and its determination will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record (Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 311). Respondent denied petitioner's application based upon public health concerns, but petitioner contends that the record provides no basis for such concerns. In particular, petitioner points out that her engineer submitted a proposal which would minimize the potential for any contamination of the proposed well and that the State Health Department had approved the proposal with certain conditions, which petitioner agreed to meet. Respondent found, however, that the proposed well was only 80 feet from the leach field of the existing septic system; that the existing septic system has less than the minimum required absorption area and is not properly set back from the property lines; that any expansion or correction of the existing septic system would necessarily reduce the 80-foot separation between the leach field and the proposed well; and that installation of the proposed well would encourage year-round use of the premises which would strain the existing inadequate septic system, creating the potential for failure of the system which might pollute nearby wells. Having identified these legitimate concerns, which are supported by substantial evidence in the record, respondent has established that strict compliance with the 100-foot separation requirement will further important governmental concerns in this case and, therefore, the determination must be confirmed (see, Matter of Lund v. Town Bd., 162 A.D.2d 798, 800).

Weiss, P.J., Levine, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Segal v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 11, 1993
191 A.D.2d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Segal v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DEBORAH SEGAL, Petitioner, v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF…

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

Date published: Mar 11, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
594 N.Y.S.2d 459

Citing Cases

Menon v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health

—i.e., the property lot was too small to construct a house of any size—and if we believe that such basis is…

Matter of Wilson v. Town of Mohawk

Finally, absent the variance, petitioner will have to pay approximately $8,300 to add 10 feet of concrete to…