You are here: / / Planning Board Should Not Have Added Conditions for Approval of Final...
,

Planning Board Should Not Have Added Conditions for Approval of Final Plat Plan

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s determination that the planning board’s denial of approval of a final plat plan was arbitrary and capricious.  The Court determined that the planning board was aware of the variance upon which the denial was based (involving the transfer of sanitary flow credits) at the time it approved the preliminary plat plan:

Although the Planning Board’s approval of the preliminary plat in April 2010 did not guarantee approval of the final version (see Town Law § 276[4]), a planning board may not, in the absence of significant new information, deny final approval if a property owner implements the modifications or conditions required by a preliminary approval (…Terry Rice, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 61, Town Law § 276 Preliminary Review). Here, the Planning Board had long known that the SCDHS’s approval of a Suffolk County Sanitary Code variance was based on the transfer of sanitary flow credits and, indeed, the Planning Board specifically referenced that transfer in its April 2010 conditional preliminary approval. Inasmuch as no significant new information came to light after the Planning Board gave its approval to the preliminary plat, its imposition of additional requirements in the conditional final approval was, as the Supreme Court correctly held, arbitrary and capricious… . Matter of Nickart Realty Corp v Southold Town Planning Bd, 2013 NY Slip Op 05909, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WHERE “SERIOUS INJURY” WAS AN ISSUE, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF PLAINTIFF TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPOSITION AND AFTER A DISCOVERY ORDER WAS PRECLUDED FROM BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND TRIAL; THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE GATHERED AFTER THE DEPOSITION; THE POST-DEPOSITION VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WAS NOT PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE VACATED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION 2ND DEPT.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S DETERMINATION THE 91-YEAR-OLD PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CONTINUOUS CARE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).
Defendants Not Liable for Assault by a Contractor-Security Guard—No Showing Defendants Were Aware of Security Guard’s Propensity for Violence—Security Guard’s Actions Were Outside the Scope of Employment
THE APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND CONSPIRACY WERE PROPER, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Variance Properly Granted/Review Criteria Explained Ownership Acquired by Adverse Possession Demonstrated