Buckley v. Amityville Village Clerk
1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9073, 264 A.D.2d 732, 694 N.Y.S.2d 739 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning or planning board's denial of a subdivision or variance application will be overturned if it lacks a rational basis and is not supported by substantial evidence. Generalized community objections, without specific evidence of negative impacts, do not constitute substantial evidence sufficient to support such a denial.
Facts:
- Michael Buckley owned a 134-foot by 140-foot parcel of real property in a Residence B zone in the Village of Amityville.
- Buckley decided to subdivide the property into two lots to build two separate single-family residences.
- Each proposed lot would measure 70 feet by 134 feet, exceeding the minimum square footage requirement for the zoning district.
- However, the street frontage of each proposed lot would be 70 feet, which is five feet short of the 75-foot frontage required by the village code.
- Evidence showed that 75% of the neighboring properties were smaller than Buckley's proposed lots, and the vast majority of lots in the neighborhood had a street frontage of less than 70 feet.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Buckley applied to the Village of Amityville Planning Board for a subdivision approval.
- Buckley also applied to the Village of Amityville Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance to reduce the frontage requirement for the two proposed lots.
- The Planning Board held a hearing and denied the subdivision application.
- The Zoning Board of Appeals held a hearing and denied the area variance application.
- Buckley filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (a trial-level court), to review and annul both determinations.
- The Supreme Court annulled the boards' determinations and ordered the Village to issue the subdivision certificate and grant the variance.
- The Village Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals (the appellants) appealed the Supreme Court's judgment to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a village planning board's denial of a subdivision application and a zoning board's denial of a related area variance have a rational basis supported by substantial evidence when the proposed lots exceed minimum square footage requirements, the requested frontage variance is minor, and the only opposition consists of generalized community concerns?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the boards' denials lack a rational basis and are not supported by substantial evidence. The court found there was an absence of substantial evidence to support the determinations of the Planning Board and Zoning Board. The evidence showed Buckley's plan was in harmony with the neighborhood, as the proposed lots exceeded the required square footage and the requested frontage variance was de minimis, especially since most neighboring lots had even less frontage. The court held that the boards impermissibly based their denials on the generalized objections and concerns of neighbors, which do not qualify as substantial evidence of a negative impact on the community. The court applied the balancing test from Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the community, and found the balance tipped in Buckley's favor.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the “substantial evidence” standard of review for administrative zoning decisions, clarifying that speculative or generalized community opposition is insufficient to deny a land-use application. It protects property owners from arbitrary denials by requiring boards to base their decisions on objective, factual evidence related to specific zoning criteria, such as congestion, property values, or public welfare. The ruling signals to lower courts and administrative bodies that they must look beyond popular sentiment and perform a rigorous, evidence-based analysis, particularly when an applicant demonstrates substantial compliance with zoning regulations and the requested variance is minor.
