Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead
Citation | 402 N.Y.S.2d 388,43 N.Y.2d 801,373 N.E.2d 282 |
Parties | , 373 N.E.2d 282 In the Matter of TANDEM HOLDING CORP., Respondent, v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF the TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 19 December 1977 |
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Order of the Appellate Division reversed, with costs, and the determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals reinstated.
The determination of the board, that petitioner's application did not nor could not, through the imposition of reasonable conditions, meet the standards in the ordinance governing the granting of special exceptions, is sufficiently supported in the record. There was proof that development of a private parking lot in a residential district abutting a proposed shopping center in a business district would significantly alter the character and quality of the surrounding residential area, diminish property values, and increase traffic congestion.
Of course, characterization of a parking lot as a special use or exception permitted with board approval precludes the board from arbitrarily denying applications, and denial solely because there is a general objection to the special use or exception would be arbitrary (Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v. Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 395 N.Y.S.2d 631, 363 N.E.2d 1376, see Matter of North Shore Steak House v. Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 243-245, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 648-650, 282 N.E.2d 606, 608-609). It does not follow, however, that requests for special exceptions must always be granted subject only to the imposition of reasonable conditions.
Entitlement to a special exception is not a matter of right (Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v. Larkin, 11 N.Y.2d 20, 24, 226 N.Y.S.2d 374, 376, 181 N.E.2d 407, 408). The stated standards in the ordinance guiding the board's consideration of special exception applications condition availability of a special exception, and compliance with those standards must be shown before any exception can be secured (e. g., Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v. Oaks, 55 A.D.2d 809, 390 N.Y.S.2d 276; Matter of C & G Developers v. Granito, 53 A.D.2d 612, 384 N.Y.S.2d 844; Matter of Klein v. Seigel, 47 A.D.2d 924, 367 N.Y.S.2d 58; see 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice (2d ed.), § 19.01; 2 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning, pp. 54-1 54-30; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sunrise Development, Inc. v. Town of Huntington
...Planning Bd., 207 A.D.2d 346, 347, 615 N.Y.S.2d 434, 436 (2d Dep't 1994); see Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 802, 373 N.E.2d 282, 402 N.Y.S.2d 388 (1977). Accordingly, the court finds Sunrise's argument that it is being deprived of a "ri......
-
Commco, Inc. v. Amelkin
...appellate courts arguing as appellants to sustain their zoning determinations (see, e.g., Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 402 N.Y.S.2d 388, 373 N.E.2d 282; Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v. Delany, 28 N.Y.2d 449, 322 N.Y.S.2d 696, 271 N.E.2d 537; Matt......
-
Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro
...v. Lansing, 72 N.Y.2d 1000, 1001–1002, 534 N.Y.S.2d 372, 530 N.E.2d 1292 ; see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 802, 402 N.Y.S.2d 388, 373 N.E.2d 282 ; Matter of Sullivan v. Town Bd. of Town of Riverhead, 102 A.D.2d 113, 115, 476......
-
Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay
...v. Lansing, 72 N.Y.2d 1000, 1001-1002, 534 N.Y.S.2d 372, 530 N.E.2d 1292; see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 802, 402 N.Y.S.2d 388, 373 N.E.2d 282; Sullivan v. Town Board of Town of Riverhead, 102 A.D.2d 113, 115, 476 N.Y.S.2d ......