Von Kohorn v. Morrell
| Decision Date | 12 January 1961 |
| Parties | , 172 N.E.2d 287 Ralph VON KOHORN, Respondent, v. Herbert K. MORRELL et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals of the City ofWhite Plains et al., Appellants. Jacquin A. BINDAMIN et al., Respondents, v. Herbert K. MORRELL et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals of the City ofWhite Plains et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
William McKinley, Corp. Counsel, White Plains (Sani L. Carnevali, White Plains, of counsel), for Board of Appeals of City of White Plains and City of White Plains, appellants.
Thomas F. Croake and William F. Ranscht, White Plains, for Young Women's Christian Association of White Plains and Central Westchester, appellant.
Ira M. Millstein and Marshall C. Berger, New York City, for respondent in first above-entitled proceeding.
Joseph W. Genzardi, New York City, for Jacquin A. Bindamin and others, respondents in second above-entitled proceeding.
The Appellate Division as its reasons for reversal first stated that the proposed Y. W. C. A. building would not be a nonprofit 'membership club' use within the meaning of the White Plains Zoning Ordinance, then said without specification that 'there is no support in the record for a number of findings made, and required to be made, by the board'. We think that neither of those positions was well taken and that the board's action was valid.
As to the Appellate Division's first ground, the zoning law says that the board may as special uses in RO districts permit 'Golf clubs, country clubs and other membership clubs not operated for profit', surely a broad inclusive category. The permit as granted authorized the construction by the local Y. W. C. A. of an 'activities building, including residence dormitory facilities' for 60 persons 'to be used by club members only, together with indoor and outdoor recreational facilities', the dormitory facilities to be 'restricted for use only by members and employees of the applicant'. On this record it was not permissible for the Appellate Division to hold as matter of law that the permit was not for such a 'membership club' use as is allowed by the ordinance. The building was to be of the conventional, well-known Y. W. C. A. type with sleeping rooms like other kinds of clubs. The objectants, as was their right, expressed their opposition to such a use in their neighborhood but they did not really claim that it would not be a clubhouse or that the Y. W. C. A. is not a nonprofit membership corporation. Some of the statements at the hearing show a mistaken belief that the board could and should order that the Y. W. C. A. build in some other neighborhood. Some objectors thought it was to be a sort of hotel. The board heard the objections, checked out the true facts and exercised its statutory discretion in granting the permit, after imposing carefully drawn restrictions.
Now, let us consider the evidence produced before the board. Recognizing settled practice and the practicalities, we have said that zoning hearings may be quite informal and that the positions of the contending parties need not be put into the form of sworn testimony (People ex rel. Fordham Manor Reformed Church v. Walsh, 244 N.Y. 280, 285, 287, 155 N.E. 575, 576, 577). At this hearing there were lawyers representing each side but no one offered formal testimony or objected to the unsworn statements put in by all parties alike. As to the sufficiency of the proof (as distinguished from its form), we will assume that under the ordinance there had to be a showing: first, of appropriate location as to transportation, water, sewerage, fire and police; second, of reasonable safeguards of neighborhood character and property values; and, third, of absence of undue traffic congestion or traffic hazard. On this record these were all questions of fact for the board to decide.
As to alleged destruction of neighborhood character and property values, we first take a general look at the locality. The proposed site is not on a quiet country lane or in a secluded urban residential area. The premises are on North Street in White Plains, near Bryant Avenue. Directly across North Street on a 70-acre site, the city is putting up a group of high school buildings complete with athletic fields, etc. At the nearby corner of North Street and Bryant Avenue a church is under construction and two other new churches are being, or about to be, built. Directly adjoining this Y. W. C. A. site is a large country club. The nearest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World Christianity v. Rosenfeld
...415 N.E.2d 961). Moreover the zoning board was not required to follow formal rules of evidence (see Matter of Von Kohorn v. Morrell, 9 N.Y.2d 27, 32, 210 N.Y.S.2d 525, 172 N.E.2d 287; People ex rel. Fordham Manor Reformed Church v. Walsh, 244 N.Y. 280, 287, 155 N.E. 575). Although the evide......
-
Lemir Realty Corp. v. Larkin
...144; Matter of Del Vecchio v. Tuomey, 283 App.Div. 955, 130 N.Y.S.2d 481, affd. 308 N.Y. 749, 125 N.E.2d 107; Matter of Von Kohorn v. Morrell, 9 N.Y.2d 27, 210 N.Y.S.2d 525). Board action refusing to grant a 'special exception' is by definition and in essential character discretionary and n......
-
Stein v. Board of Appeals of Town of Islip
...zoning board of appeals is not constrained by the rules of evidence and may conduct informal hearings (Matter of Von Kohorn v. Morrell, 9 N.Y.2d 27, 32, 210 N.Y.S.2d 525, 172 N.E.2d 287; People ex rel. Fordham Manor Ref. Church v. Walsh, 244 N.Y. 280, 287, 155 N.E. 575; Matter of Kenyon v. ......
-
Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. Weise
...the formality of making factual findings in support of a determination which cannot be sustained. (Cf. Matter of Von Kohorn v. Morrell, 9 N.Y.2d 27, 34, 210 N.Y.S.2d 525, 172 N.E.2d 287; Matter of New York City Housing & Redevelopment Bd. v. Foley, 23 A.D.2d 84, 258 N.Y.S.2d 526, affd. 16 N......