Daily Development for Friday, September 5, 2009
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City, Missouri
ZONING AND LAND USE; PROCEDURES: In making a decision on a variance application, a zoning board cannot take into consideration prior misrepresentations made by the applicant as to its intended use or general community opposition based upon activities unrelated to the impact of the proposed variance.
Caspian Realty v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 842 N.Y.S.2d 887 (Sup. 2007).
Prior to constructing a building, the petitioner obtained approval from the Planning Board. After completing construction and receiving a certificate of occupancy, the petitioner was found to be in violation of zoning ordinances due to undisclosed and unapproved retail use - a furniture outlet - on the lower level. Petitioner argued that it in fact had disclosed that intended retail on the lower level, but the Board found, and the court affirmed, that in fact there had been a misrepresentation that the lower level would be used for storage.
The petitioner then sought area variances and parking variances similar to those that the Board had granted to retail furniture outlets in the past. It indicated it was willing to accept a restriction that it would limit its use to retail furniture sales.
The Zoning Board of Appeal, however, expressly took into consideration the fact that the petitioner earlier misrepresented its intended use of the lower level to the Planning Board. It stated that to grant the variance under such circumstances was against the public interest in that it would encourage lying by future applicants. The Board also took into account neighbors’ complaints about various annoying activities on the property, such as trucks arriving too early and improperly unloading, parking of commercial vehicles over night, etc. These activities did not relate to the lower level retail outlet, but to the lawful storage activities on the property.
The court acknowledged that a determination of a zoning board should be sustained if it does not have a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious and that the board must engage in a balancing test weighing the benefits to the applicant against the detriment to the community. Tut it also found that the basis for these conclusions must lie in the statutory standards under New York law. Further, the court could not deny variance benefits in one case that it had granted in another case without showing a rationale basis.
The court found that, although it did not condone misrepresentations, the Zoning Board of Appeals improperly considered the misrepresentations in its denial. Furthermore, the court found that the complaints were not associated with the zoning violations and the Zoning Board of Appeals did not properly consider an expert’s report. The court annulled the decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
Comment: Good luck to the applicant on its next application. The granting of a variance is discretionary, and undoubtedly there are perfectly valid grounds that the zoning board could use to deny the variance. This is a case where a rattlesnake has been stirred. It will be hard to lull it back to sleep, even though the applicant may have felt quite righteous in that, in its view, it had fully disclosed everything originally and had not lied. In this situation, there is no good answer for the applicant.
Readers are encouraged to respond to or criticize this posting.
Items reported on DIRT and in the ABA publications related to it are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data provided and opinions expressed by the DIRT editor the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 - 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day. To
subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
for information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses upon residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
Members of the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate
and Trust Law or of the National Association of Realtors can subscribe to a quarterly hardcopy report that includes all DIRT Daily Developments, many other cases, and periodic reviews of real estate oriented literature and state legislation by contacting Antonette Smith at (312) 988 5260 or email@example.com