C & G Developers, Inc. v. Granito
| Decision Date | 01 June 1976 |
| Citation | 384 N.Y.S.2d 15,53 A.D.2d 612 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In the Matter of C & G DEVELOPERS, INC., Appellant, v. Armand A. GRANITO, Chairman, et al., constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, Respondents. |
Cohn & Foley, Baldwin (William S. Cohn, Baldwin, of counsel), for appellant.
W. Kenneth Chave, Jr., Town Atty., Hempstead (Joseph C. Calabrese, Franklin Square, of counsel), for respondents.
Before HOPKINS, Acting P.J., and MARGETT, DAMIANI, HAWKINS and TITONE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead which, after a hearing, denied petitioner's application for a special exception permit, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 27, 1975, which dismissed the petition on the merits.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
On the record on this appeal, we cannot say that there was no evidence of an adverse impact on adjoining or neighboring properties, or that the Board of Zoning Appeals, in denying the application, acted arbitrarily (see Matter of Suddell v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Larchmont, 36 N.Y.2d 312, 367 N.Y.S.2d 766, 327 N.E.2d 809). Petitioner's reliance upon the case of Matter of North Shore Steak House v. Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston (30 N.Y.2d 238, 244, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 649, 282 N.E.2d 606, 609) is misplaced. The Court of Appeals therein held that it was patently inconsistent for the zoning board to find that the proposed extension of petitioner's parking lot was not "in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning plan", where such an extension was expressly provided for, on a permissive basis, in the zoning ordinance. This does not mean, as petitioner suggests, that there is, a fortiori, no adverse affect on neighboring properties. Indeed, the Court of Appeals went on, in the North Shore Steak House case, to find that there was no basis for the conclusion that property values would be adversely affected, that traffic in the area would be greatly increased, or that noise levels would rise.
In my opinion the determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals is only supported by its finding that 'the sidewalk is narrow at the proposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silvernail v. Rago
...801, 402 N.Y.S.2d 388, 373 N.E.2d 282; 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 15). Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs, without prejudice to a new application showing elimination of obje......
-
Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead
...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......
-
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Oaks
...the existing and proposed future development of the neighborhood in which the premises is situated' (see, Matter of C & G Developers, Inc. v. Granito, 53 A.D.2d 612, 384 N.Y.S.2d 15). Courts will not generally interfere with the Town Board's determination in a zoning dispute, since these ma......