Citation Numbers: 158 A.D.2d 991, 551 N.Y.S.2d 144, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1545
Filed Date: 2/2/1990
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/31/2024
We agree that the record does not set forth sufficient factual bases for the Commission’s decision and thus forecloses intelligent judicial review (see, Leibring v Planning Bd., 144 AD2d 903; see also, 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice §§ 24.25, 25.32 [3d ed]). The letter from City Planner Larrabee to Sanzone, which purports to set forth the reasons for the Commission’s denial, contains only conclusions rather than the factual basis for the Commission’s decision. Thus, the matter must be remitted to respondent Commission to make appropriate findings of fact with respect to the basis for its decision.
Moreover, we note that the court’s decision annulling the Zoning Board’s determination is flawed. The Zoning Board denied petitioner’s application for a variance eliminating any parking requirements. The court did not specifically address whether the Board properly denied that application. Essentially, the court concluded that, since the Commission’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, denial of an area variance to implement petitioners’ proposal was similarly arbitrary and capricious. The court then determined that the Board should have granted petitioner a limited area variance for 18 parking spaces, a matter which was not before the Board. Thus, the court’s annulment of the Zoning Board’s decision was predicated on an issue that was not before the Board and must be set aside.
In view of this determination, we do not address petitioners’ cross appeal concerning their entitlement to damages for a constructive taking of their property. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.—art 78.) Present-—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.