Local Zoning Discretion vs. State Coastal Erosion Regulations: Matter of 260 BC, LLC v. East Hampton ZBA

Introduction

The Appellate Division, Second Department’s decision in Matter of 260 BC, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Hampton (2025 NYSlipOp 01623) addresses the intersection of local zoning authority and State-imposed coastal erosion controls. 260 BC, LLC (“260 BC”) sought a natural resources special permit (NRSP) to build an elevated pedestrian walkway across a reserved dune and wetlands area in order to access the ocean beach. After obtaining a coastal erosion management permit and tidal wetlands permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the petitioners’ NRSP application was denied by the Town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). A CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging that denial was dismissed by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal on March 19, 2025.

Summary of the Judgment

The ZBA’s denial of the NRSP was upheld as rational and supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The petitioners failed to demonstrate compatibility of the proposed structure with its surroundings, or that it would avoid significant environmental impacts, under Town Code § 255-5-40(A), (D), (K), (M).
The court rejected the argument that 6 NYCRR 505.8(d)(4)—the DEC regulation requiring elevated walkways where dune‐damaging foot traffic occurs—mandated approval of the NRSP as preempting local law.
On preemption, the court held that the Environmental Conservation Law expressly contemplates local regulation in coastal erosion hazard areas and that no direct conflict existed because the DEC rule only applies where foot traffic “causes sufficient damage to primary dunes.”

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Matter of 7-Eleven v. Board of Trustees of Mineola, 289 AD2d 250 (special‐use permits must be granted unless reasonable grounds exist for denial).
Matter of North Shore Steak House v. Board of Appeals of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238 (local boards enjoy broad discretion; courts only determine rationality).
Matter of Chestnut Petroleum Dist., Inc. v. Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Bd., 222 AD3d 748 (failure to satisfy any one zoning ordinance condition justifies denial).
Matter of 153 Mulford Assoc., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of E. Hampton, 205 AD3d 1019 (denial must be supported by evidence, especially on environmental grounds).
Ba Mar v. County of Rockland, 164 AD2d 605 (local law is inconsistent where it prohibits what State law permits or adds prerequisite restrictions).
Eric M. Berman, P.C. v. City of New York, 25 NY3d 684 (caution against overbroad conflict preemption).

Legal Reasoning

The court reiterated that a local zoning board’s special‐use determination “must be rational and supported by evidence” and that judicial review is confined to assessing illegality, arbitrariness, capriciousness, or abuse of discretion. Here, the ZBA recorded findings that:

The proposed 4 × 659-foot elevated pedestrian walkway would be visually incompatible with the surrounding seaside community and the reserved area’s protected character.
Existing footpath access (in use since 1962) did not cause undue disturbance to dunes or wetlands.
The petitioners failed the Town Code’s general and specific standards for NRSPs (compatibility, environmental protection, avoidance of detriment, etc.).

On preemption, the court analyzed 6 NYCRR 505.8(d)(4)—which prohibits damaging foot traffic on primary dunes and generally requires elevated dune crossings—and concluded that:

DEC regulations only “trigger” when un‐mitigated foot traffic diminishes dune erosion protection.
The ZBA found no such damage; thus the local denial did not conflict with the DEC rule.
Environmental Conservation Law § 34-0107(4) expressly allows local ordinances in erosion hazard areas, subject only to conflict preemption if a direct inconsistency exists.

Impact

This decision underscores that:

Local boards retain broad discretion under home‐rule zoning powers even in State‐regulated coastal zones, provided they act rationally and on evidentiary grounds.
State DEC erosion regulations do not automatically override local special‐permit provisions absent clear conflict.
Future applicants in coastal erosion hazard areas must address both State permit requirements and local compatibility/environmental standards separately.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP): A local zoning permit for developments affecting protected natural features (dunes, wetlands, habitat).
CPLR article 78 proceeding: A judicial review action challenging administrative decisions for illegality or abuse of discretion.
Preemption: The principle that State law overrides conflicting local law; here, limited to direct conflicts.
Primary Dunes and Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas: Dune ridges seaward of wetlands providing storm protection; regulated by ECL article 34 and 6 NYCRR part 505.

Conclusion

Matter of 260 BC, LLC v. East Hampton ZBA clarifies that local zoning authorities in New York may deny special permits in sensitive coastal zones on environmental and community‐compatibility grounds, even where State coastal erosion rules encourage elevated dune crossings. Absent a direct conflict, DEC regulations imposing protective measures do not preempt a municipality’s reasoned, evidence‐based exercise of its zoning powers. This decision will guide future applicants and local boards in balancing State coastal objectives with local land‐use controls.