Weinstein v. Planning Bd. of Village of Great Neck
| Decision Date | 05 July 1967 |
| Citation | 281 N.Y.S.2d 148,28 A.D.2d 862 |
| Parties | Lloyd B. WEINSTEIN, Appellant, v. PLANNING BOARD OF the VILLAGE OF GREAT NECK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before BELDOCK, P.J., and UGHETTA, RABIN, MUNDER and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding under CPLR, article 78, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 4, 1965, which dismissed his petition to annul a determination made by the defendant Planning Board, disapproving a subdivision map submitted by plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
BENJAMIN, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment, to annul the determination of the Planning Board, and to direct it to approve the proposed subdivision plat, with the following memorandum:
Plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land in the Residence 'C' zone of the Village of Great Neck. His parcel contains 28,348 square feet of land, and it fronts on two curved, cul-de-sac, public streets known as Reed Court and Birchwood Lane. The Village Planning Board has disapproved his proposed subdivision plat, which divided his parcel into four lots, which for convenience I shall call Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. (Because of the unusual situation here presented, which is difficult to describe in words, I am incorporating the following sketch showing the proposed subdivision plat submitted by plaintiff to the Planning Board.)
In the Residence 'C' zone, the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet; the minimum 'street frontage' is 50 feet; the minimum front yard width is 50 feet, and its depth must be at least 20 feet; and 'front yard' is defined as a 'yard across the full width of the lot extending from the front line of the building to the front line of the lot.'
An examination of the foregoing sketch shows that Lots 1 and 2, fronting on the curve of the cul-de-sac of Birchwood Lane, each have 50 feet of street frontage when measured on the arc (and defendants concede that in this respect they comply with the ordinance); that when measured on a straight line, the front yards of each of them are less than 50 feet wide for a depth of about 50 feet, but are about 55 feet wide at a point about 65 feet back from the street, where plaintiff intends to locate the houses he contemplates building; and that these lots have areas of 8,758 and 9,290 aquare feet, respectively. Lot 3, fronting on Reed Court, has a street frontage of 56 feet and an area of 5,050 square feet. Lot 4, fronting on the curve of the cul-de-sac of Reed Court, has an area of 5,250 square feet; its front line is 62.2 feet wide, but because the cul-de-sac curves away from its front line, the 'street frontage' is only 26.4 feet, with the remaining 35.8 feet of the front line abutting on a narrow, triangular wedge of the adjoining lot.
The Planning Board disapproved this subdivision plat on the ground that Lot 4 had a street frontage of less than the 50 foot minimum, and Lots 1 and 2 had front yards narrower than the 50 foot minimum. In my opinion, this determination was incorrect and was based upon a hypertechnical and impractical construction of the zoning ordinance.
The original developer who laid out these cul-de-sacs, with the approval of the Planning Board, obviously did so with the intention of enhancing the beauty, variety and convenience of the entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohalan v. Schermerhorn
...686, 312 N.Y.S.2d 398 aff'd, 31 N.Y.2d 704, 337 N.Y.S.2d 513, 289 N.E.2d 554). The town cites Matter of Weinstein v. Planning Bd. of Vil. of Great Neck, 28 A.D.2d 862, 281 N.Y.S.2d 148, aff'd, 21 N.Y.2d 1001, 290 N.Y.S.2d 922, 238 N.E.2d 325, for the proposition that a planning board is wit......
-
Banos v. Colborn
...also, Contino v. Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 27 N.Y.2d 701, 314 N.Y.S.2d 15, 262 N.E.2d 221; Matter of Weinstein v. Planning Bd. of Vil. of Great Neck, 28 A.D.2d 862, 281 N.Y.S.2d 148, affd. 21 N.Y.2d 1001, 290 N.Y.S.2d 922, 238 N.E.2d Petitioner further contends that in an application ......
-
113 Hillside Ave. Corp. v. Zaino
...area'. And in Matter of Weinstein v. Planning Bd. of Vil. of Great Neck, 21 N.Y.2d 1001, 290 N.Y.S.2d 922, 238 N.E.2d 325, affg. 28 A.D.2d 862, 281 N.Y.S.2d 148, which closely resembles the present case, we sustained the denial of a proposed subdivision map submitted by the owner on the gro......
-
113 Hillside Ave. Corp. v. Zaino
...to acquisition. In this regard, we view the instant case as being controlled by the decision in Matter of Weinstein v. Planning Bd. of Village of Great Neck, 28 A.D.2d 862, 281 N.Y.S.2d 148, affd. 21 N.Y.2d 1001, 290 N.Y.S.2d 922, 238 N.E.2d 325. There, this court affirmed a judgment dismis......