Development

In landowner's combined article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action challenging the village's denial of its applications and interpretation of the local zoning ordinance, landowner appealed from Supreme Court denial of the petition and dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division modified to reinstate the claim that the definition of boardinghouse was illegal or unconstitutional, and otherwise affirmed.

Landowner bought the subject property in 2020 when the property was used as a bed-and-breakfast, a permitted use under the zoning ordinance. Landowner then applied for a rental housing permit for a boardinghouse, and received a permit with an occupant limit of eight. Shortly thereafter, however, the village informed the landowner that the ordinance permitted a maximum of three unrelated persons in a boarding house. The village revoked the permit. Landowner then made applications for various uses of the property: as a two-family dwelling with four persons per unit, as a single family dwelling with eight sorority members, or as a bed-and-breakfast with a live-in property manager. The chief enforcement officer denied the applications, and the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) upheld the determination and also denied the variance relief landowner sought. Landowner then brought this proceeding to annul those determinations and for a declaration that portions of the zoning ordinance were illegal and unconstitutional. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and complaint.