Development

In landowner's article 78 proceeding challenging the ZBA's interpretation of its ordinance and denial of a use variance, landowner appealed from Supreme Court's denial of the petition and dismissal of the proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the ZBA's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

In 1982, landowner applied for an obtained a use variance to permit the premises to be used as a fuel tank lining business. In 2017, after complaints from neighbors, the town's code compliance department asked the ZBA for an interpretation of the ordinance to determine whether use of the premises in support of a hydro-excavation business, including outdoor parking of trucks on which hyrdrovac equipment was mounted, would violate the terms of the use variance. The ZBA concluded that use for those purposes exceeded the scope of the variance. Then, in 2018, landowner sought an interpretation that the indoor parking and storage of vehicles with hydrovac equipment was consistent with the 1982 variance, or in the alternative, a use variance to permit indoor parking. The ZBA denied the application, prompting an article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court denied the petition and landowner appealed.