Development

In landowner's article 78 proceeding challenging denial of a zoning variance and for declaratory relief, landowner appealed from Supreme Court's denial of the petition and dismissal of the proceeding, The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the zoning board was bound by its prior determination on landowner's earlier, and substantially identical, application.

Landowner sought a building permit to add a second story to an existing structure so that he could operate a two-story restaurant. The building inspector denied the permit because the application did not comply with the off-street parking requirements of the village's zoning ordinance. Landowner appealed the denial and sought a variance from the parking requirements. The zoning board of appeals denied the variance, concluding that nearby municipal lots could not handle the parking burden caused by a second story. Landowner then filed a second variance application, proposing to provide valet parking, and to park cars on two nearby properties. The zoning board of appeals again denied the application, noting that covenants and restrictions on the proposed nearby locations precluded their use for parking. The zoning board of appeals then concluded that other than the proposed valet parking, the application was identical to the prior application, and concluded that res judicata barred grant of the application. Landowner then brought this article 78 proceeding, challenging both the variance denial and the zoning board counsel's failure to disqualify himself from representing the board. Supreme Court denied the petition, and landowner appealed.