You are here: / / ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL ANNULLED,...

ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL ANNULLED, BOARD’S DETERMINATION BASED SOLELY ON GENERALIZED COMMUNITY OPPOSITION.

The Second Department, reversing the zoning board, determined that the denial of petitioner’s application for site plan approval was improperly based solely on generalized community opposition. The village consultants and the negative State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) declaration did not support the board’s determination:

“Although scientific or other expert testimony is not required in every case to support a zoning board’s determination, the board may not base its decision on generalized community objections” … . In contrast, a zoning board’s reliance upon specific, detailed testimony of neighbors based on personal knowledge does not render a variance determination the product of generalized and conclusory community opposition … .

Here, we agree with the petitioner that the record lacks sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board’s determinations denying the petitioner’s application for site plan approval … . The only evidence in the record concerning the traffic and safety issues cited by the Board in the determinations was the conclusory opposition of neighboring residents, which was not supported by any of the Village’s consultants and was contradicted by the negative SEQRA declaration adopted by the Board … . Under the circumstances, the Board’s determinations were improperly based on generalized community opposition and should have been annulled … . Matter of Ramapo Pinnacle Props., LLC v Village of Airmont Planning Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 08238, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

ZONING (ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL ANNULLED, BOARD’S DETERMINATION BASED SOLELY ON GENERALIZED COMMUNITY OPPOSITION)

You might also like
Condition Which Resulted in Plaintiff’s Injury Was Not the Cause of the Injury
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WARRANTED STRIKING THE ANSWER.
Federal Arbitration Act Applies When Interstate Commerce Involved
Insurer Estopped (pursuant to Insurance Law 3420) from Disclaiming Coverage Re: Previously Incurred Defense Costs in a Personal Injury Action
LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT).
Memorialized Telephone Notification About Pothole Does Not Satisfy Written Notice Requirement—Inadequate Repair Is Not Sufficient to Demonstrate Municipality Created the Dangerous Condition
A Prima Facie Case Under the Dram Shop Act Had Been Made Against Both Bars Which Served Plaintiff’s Decedent, Even Though the Alcohol Served at the First Bar Would Have Metabolized by the Time of the Accident Had Plaintiff’s Decedent Not Continued to Drink at the Second Bar
ORDERS ISSUED WHEN THE STAY PURSUANT TO CPLR 321(c) WAS IN EFFECT, DUE TO THE INABILITY OF PETITIONER’S COUNSEL TO CONTINUE FOR MEDICAL REASONS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S... WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT IN POLICY FOR ADDITIONAL INSUREDS DID NOT REQUIRE...