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
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PROCEED PRO SE ON THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING (FOURTH DEPT).
Denial of Motion for Severance Upheld—Defendant Suing for Two Types of Injuries Allegedly Linked to Two Different Groups of Defendants​
PLAINTIFF, A PERMISSIVE DRIVER OF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK, WAS INJURED WHEN HE OPENED THE WATER RESERVOIR FOR THE ENGINE AND IT “EXPLODED,” APPARENTLY BECAUSE THE ENGINE OVERHEATED DUE TO THE POSITION OF THE SNOW PLOW AND THE CONSEQUENT BLOCKING OF AIR FLOW TO THE ENGINE; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS FORESEEABLE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) REVIEW OF A ONE-DAY SQUIRREL-HUNTING FUND-RAISING EVENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE IMPOSITION OF TWO CONSECUTIVE PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF AN AFFIDAVIT FROM TRIAL COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE WHEN INJURED, PLAINTIFF’S SOLE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER FORGED NOTE AND GUARANTIES WERE RATIFIED (FOURTH 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 © 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...