You are here: / / PLANNING BOARD ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER’S...
,

PLANNING BOARD ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER’S CHALLENGE TO A WOODLOT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (EPOD) FINDING, PLANNING BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER THE CRITERIA LAID OUT IN THE TOWN CODE.

The Fourth Department determined the respondent town planning board acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied petitioner’s challenge to the finding his property was within the boundaries of a woodlot environmental protection overlay district (EPOD). The Fourth Department held that the respondent was obligated to consider the EPOD criteria laid out in the Town Code and failed to do so:

Petitioner owns property located within a Woodlot Overlay Protection District in the Town of Irondequoit, as set forth on the Woodlots Map of the Town of Irondequoit. Irondequoit Town Code (Town Code) § 235-43 provides that the locations and boundaries of an environmental protection overlay district (EPOD) shall be delineated on the official set of maps, but further states that those maps “shall be used for reference purposes only and shall not be used to delineate specific or exact boundaries of the various overlay districts. Field investigations and/or other environmental analyses may be required in order to determine whether or not a particular piece of property is included within one or more of the overlay districts.” Section 235-44 then provides that the “Town Department of Planning and Zoning shall be responsible for interpreting [EPOD] boundaries based on an interpretation of the Official Town of Irondequoit EPOD Maps, as well as the use of various criteria set forth in this article for determining such district boundaries.” For a Woodlot EPOD, those criteria are set forth at section 235-53 (B) of the Town Code and include, inter alia, that the property have “communities” of certain species of trees. Finally, section 235-44 provides that “[a]ppeals from a determination of the Town Department of Planning and Zoning regarding boundaries of overlay districts shall be made to the Town Planning Board in accordance with the public hearing procedures.” * * *

We conclude that petitioner stated a claim that respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the appeal because the criteria set forth in Town Code § 235-53 (B) were not considered by respondent. Based on Town Code §§ 235-43 and 235-44, respondent is responsible for interpreting the boundary of the particular Woodlot EPOD encompassing petitioner’s property, based on the criteria set forth in Town Code … . Matter of Gilbert v Planning Bd. of Town of Irondequoit, 2017 NY Slip Op 02210, 4th Dept 3-24-17

 

ZONING (PLANNING BOARD ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER’S CHALLENGE TO A WOODLOT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (EPOD) FINDING, PLANNING BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER THE CRITERIA LAID OUT IN THE TOWN CODE)/ENVIROMENTAL LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, (PLANNING BOARD ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER’S CHALLENGE TO A WOODLOT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (EPOD) FINDING, PLANNING BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER THE CRITERIA LAID OUT IN THE TOWN CODE)/PLANNIG BOARD (PLANNING BOARD ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER’S CHALLENGE TO A WOODLOT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (EPOD) FINDING, PLANNING BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER THE CRITERIA LAID OUT IN THE TOWN CODE)

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS NEED NOT SHOW THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION IN THE ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE WAS SUFFICIENT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Advise Non-Citizen Defendant of Deportation Consequences of Plea Required Remittal
A Shooting Victim’s Negligence and Public Nuisance Actions Against the Manufacturer, Distributor and Resellers of Firearms Is Allowed to Go Forward.
Court Could Not Require Parolee to Submit Psychological and Medical Proof In Support of Name-Change Petition
DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MENACING AT THE FIRST TRIAL BUT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE MENACING CHARGES WAS ALLOWED IN THE SECOND TRIAL; THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE PRECLUDED PRESENTATION OF THAT EVIDENCE IN THE SECOND TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, A DE FACTO MERGER OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR WITH THE CURRENT DEFENDANT WAS DEMONSTRATED (FOURTH DEPT).
TRUST WHICH ALLOWED PETITIONER’S CHILDREN TO DISTRIBUTE PRINCIPAL TO PETITIONER RENDERED PETITIONER INELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID, DESPITE CHILDREN’S REFUSAL TO MAKE A DISTRIBUTION.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FIBER OPTIC CABLES NOT TAXABLE UNDER THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW. STATE’S RULING SCHOOL DISTRICT VIOLATED INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES...