A New York court has upheld the Town of Highlands Zoning Board of Appeals' (ZBA) decision to issue building permits and a certificate of occupancy for a modular home. This ruling affects local property owners and sets a precedent for similar zoning disputes.
The case, titled Matter of Kopald v. Town of Highlands N.Y. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on September 23, 2026. The petitioner, Deborah Kopald, challenged the ZBA's determinations regarding the construction of a modular home by her neighbors, David Tonneson, Deborah Tonneson, and Jaidin Paisley-Tonneson, collectively referred to as the Tonnesons. The court's decision is significant as it addresses the issue of standing in zoning disputes, which can affect how local zoning laws are enforced.
The dispute began when Kopald sought to rescind building permits and a certificate of occupancy issued to the Tonnesons for their property. The ZBA held public hearings and ultimately concluded that Kopald lacked standing to challenge the permits. This determination was based on the finding that Kopald did not demonstrate that she would suffer direct harm from the construction, a requirement for standing in such cases. The ZBA issued its decisions on August 19, 2020, and September 16, 2020, respectively.
Kopald then filed two related proceedings under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) to review the ZBA's determinations. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Orange County, where Justice Robert A. Onofry presided. The court ruled in favor of the ZBA, granting its motion to dismiss Kopald's amended petition and upholding the issuance of the permits. The court also sanctioned Kopald for what it deemed frivolous conduct in pursuing the case.
The Appellate Division, which includes Justices Betsy Barros, Lillian Wan, James P. McCormack, and Phillip Hom, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court stated, "The determination of a local zoning board is entitled to great deference, and will be set aside only if it is illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or irrational." The judges concluded that the ZBA's finding that Kopald lacked standing was reasonable and supported by evidence.
The court's ruling emphasized that Kopald failed to show that her alleged harm was different from that of the general public. The judges noted that the ZBA's decision to uphold the building permits was rational and based on the evidence presented during the hearings. The ruling also clarified that the ZBA's decision not to refer the appeals to the Orange County Planning Department was not arbitrary or capricious.
This ruling has important implications for future zoning disputes in New York. It reinforces the principle that local zoning boards have significant authority in making determinations about building permits and that their decisions will be upheld unless there is clear evidence of illegality or irrationality. This case serves as a reminder for property owners to understand the standing requirements when challenging zoning decisions, as failing to establish standing can lead to dismissal of their appeals.
In addition to the ruling on the permits, the court also addressed the issue of sanctions against Kopald. The ZBA and the Tonnesons had sought costs and attorney's fees, arguing that Kopald's actions were frivolous. The court agreed, stating that the Supreme Court had adequately provided reasons for finding Kopald's conduct to be frivolous and exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate parties involved. It may influence how zoning boards approach future cases and how individuals prepare their challenges to zoning decisions. The court's affirmation of the ZBA's authority could deter similar challenges that lack a clear basis for standing.
As for what comes next, the ruling can potentially be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any plans for further appeal. Additionally, there is a related case concerning the sanctions imposed on Kopald that is currently pending before the court.