Brenner v. SniadoBrenner v. Sniado
In а proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent members of the Zoning Board оf Appeals of the City of Rye, dated May 31, 1988, which denied the petitioners’ apрlication for an area varianсe, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westсhester County (Cowhey, J.), entered October 17,1988, which dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Thе petitioners applied to the Zоning Board of Appeals of the City of Rye for an area variance, proposing to subdivide their property to сreate one conforming lot upon which their own single-family residence was situated and one nonconforming lot upоn which they intended to build a second dwelling. The petitioners, however, did not first apрly to the Planning Commission for subdivision approval. Therefore, there was no. adverse determination from which an apрeal to the Zoning Board of Appеals could properly be taken. In thе absence of an administrative determination to review, the Zoning Board of Appeals was without power to grant thе variance since its jurisdiction in that regаrd is appellate only and it may not rеnder an advisory opinion (see, Moriarty v Planning Bd.,
In light of our determinatiоn, we do not reach the merits of the petitioners’ application. Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.