## Facts

- North Shore Steak House, Inc. operated a restaurant on a split-zoned lot in the Village of Thomaston: the front 200 feet in a Business “B” District and the rear 86 feet in a Residence “B” District.
- The property had been in single and separate ownership since 1903; a restaurant had operated on the site since 1940.
- The restaurant seated about 188 patrons, while on-site parking accommodated about 75–85 cars; the business-zoned portion had been fully paved for parking.
- North Shore sought to expand parking into the residentially zoned rear portion due to claimed weekend parking shortages.
- North Shore and the lessor applied to the zoning board for (1) a special-exception permit to extend the parking lot 25 feet into the Residence “B” District and (2) a hardship variance to use the remaining residential portion for accessory parking.
- After a hearing, the Board denied both requests, finding (among other things) no uniqueness, self-created hardship, adverse impact on neighbors, and lack of harmony with the zoning scheme.
- North Shore challenged the denials in an Article 78 proceeding; the trial court and Appellate Division upheld the Board, and North Shore appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board lawfully denied the special-exception permit to extend accessory parking 25 feet into the Residence “B” District.
2. Whether the Board lawfully denied the hardship variance to use the remaining residentially zoned portion for accessory parking.

## Decision

- The court sustained the Board’s denial of the hardship variance.
- The court annulled the Board’s denial of the special-exception permit and remitted for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.
- The court held the Board improperly analyzed the special-exception request as though it were a variance, relying on variance-type factors rather than the ordinance’s special-exception criteria and record-based findings.

## Legal Principles

- A variance authorizes a use forbidden by the zoning ordinance and requires proof of the statutory hardship criteria (including lack of self-created hardship and lack of adverse neighborhood impact).
- A special exception (special permit) authorizes a use expressly allowed by the ordinance, subject to stated conditions and safeguards; the board’s task is to apply those criteria, not to demand variance-level hardship proof.
- Courts defer to zoning-board determinations only when the board applies the correct legal standard and supports its decision with an adequate factual basis; conclusory assertions are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the denial of a variance to expand parking deeper into the residential district because the Board’s hardship-related findings were supported by evidence, but it set aside and remanded the denial of a 25-foot special-permit parking extension because the Board applied the wrong legal test and failed to ground its “not in harmony” conclusion in adequate, permit-specific findings.


North Shore Steak House, Inc. v. Bd. of Appeals of the Inc. Vill. of Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 282 N.E.2d 606 (N.Y. 1972)