February 2, 2016

In Borrok v. Town of South Hampton et al, 130 A.D.3d 1024 (2nd Dept. 2015), 34 Cove, LLC applied to the Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals for certain area variances to permit a tennis court to be constructed in the front yard of its nonconforming lot. The Zoning Board granted the application and the Court upheld the Zoning Board’s decision.

The Court in this case found that the Zoning Board engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors; while the Court agreed with the petitioner that the proposed variances were substantial, and that the alleged difficulty was self-created, there was no evidence that the granting of the variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, have an adverse effect on physical and environmental conditions, or otherwise result in a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community. Moreover, the Court found that the Zoning Board rationally concluded that the benefit sought by 34 Cove, namely, to maximize its use of the proposed tennis court, could not be achieved by the alternative site proposed by the petitioner.

Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court found that the Supreme Court properly denied the petition challenging the Zoning Board’s decision to grant the area variances.

For more information about our New York land use and zoning practice areas, please click here.

For general information about the firm, including our contact information, please click here.

The Law Offices of Keith R. Betensky, Esq.
The Empire Building
26 Village Green, Suite 4
P.O. Box 22
Bedford, New York 10506-0022
(914) 338-8050
keith@betenskylaw.com
www.betenskylaw.com