## Facts

- Charisma Holding Corp. owned commercially zoned property in the Town of Lewisboro used as an automobile dealership, abutting residentially zoned land to the north and east.
- Charisma sought an area variance to construct a 3,000-square-foot, six-bay garage to wash, spray-paint, and service vehicles.
- The garage use was permitted in the zone, but the proposal required an area variance because it would increase lot coverage to 69% where 60% was the maximum allowed.
- The Zoning Board of Appeals held three public meetings and conducted two site visits.
- Nearby residents objected that the proposed northern location would be close to a residence and would increase fumes, noise, traffic, and other impacts.
- The ZBA evaluated alternative locations on the parcel and identified a middle-lot location as less harmful to neighboring residential properties.
- Charisma maintained that the northern location should be approved, citing added costs and concerns associated with the middle-lot site.
- The ZBA denied the variance for the northern location but granted an area variance conditioned on siting the garage on the middle lot.
- In an Article 78 proceeding, the Supreme Court granted Charisma relief and directed the ZBA to grant the variance as requested for the northern location.
- The ZBA appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the ZBA’s denial of the requested area variance for the preferred northern location, while granting a variance conditioned on an alternative location, lacked a rational basis or was arbitrary and capricious.
2. Whether the ZBA exceeded its authority by conditioning the variance on the garage’s location on the lot, rather than leaving siting to other municipal review.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s judgment, confirmed the ZBA’s determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.
- The court held the ZBA’s denial of the northern-location variance and conditional approval for the middle-lot location had a rational basis and was supported by record evidence.
- The court held the ZBA acted within its authority in considering siting impacts and imposing a location condition to reduce adverse effects on neighboring residential properties.

## Legal Principles

- In Article 78 review of zoning determinations, a zoning board’s decision is upheld if it has a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious; courts may not substitute their judgment for the board’s fact-based discretion when supported by evidence.
- In deciding an area variance, a zoning board may balance the applicant’s benefit against detriment to neighborhood health, safety, and welfare and may consider whether feasible alternatives exist that reduce adverse impacts.
- The fact that a proposed use is permitted does not preclude denial or conditioning of an area variance where increased intensity or lot-coverage noncompliance creates site-specific impacts on adjacent properties.
- A zoning board may grant an area variance subject to reasonable conditions directly related to mitigating adverse effects, including conditions governing the placement of a structure on the parcel.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the zoning board’s conditional area variance determination because the board reasonably considered neighborhood impacts and available alternatives, and it could lawfully require the garage to be located on a less harmful portion of the property.


Charisma Holding Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Lewisboro, 266 A.D.2d 540, 699 N.Y.S.2d 89 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1999)