You are here: / / SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT...

SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS A VARIANCE EXPLAINED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined a special use permit was properly granted to a golf course seeking permission to host nonmember events. The court explained the different criteria for a special use permit versus a variance:

“Unlike a variance which gives permission to an owner to use property in a manner inconsistent with a local zoning ordinance, a special use permit gives permission to use property that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, although not necessarily allowed as of right” … . The burden of proof on an applicant seeking a special use permit is lighter than that carried by an applicant for a zoning variance … . Once an applicant shows “that the contemplated use is in conformance with the conditions imposed, a special [use] permit or exception must be granted unless there are reasonable grounds for denying it that are supported by substantial evidence” … .

Here, on this record, there was substantial evidence that Hampshire Club, Inc.’s contemplated use comported with the requirements of Village of Mamaroneck Zoning Code … , and there were no reasonable grounds for denying the special use permit. Therefore, the special use permit to host nonmember events at the Country Club should have been granted… . “Where substantial evidence exists, a court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the board, even if such a contrary determination is itself supported by the record” … . Matter of Mamaroneck Coastal Envt. Coalition, Inc. v Board of Appeals of the Vil. of Mamaroneck, 2017 NY Slip Op 05822, 2nd Dept 7-25-17

ZONING (SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS A VARIANCE EXPLAINED 2ND DEPT)/SPECIAL USE PERMIT (ZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS A VARIANCE EXPLAINED 2ND DEPT)/VARIANCE (ZING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS A VARIANCE EXPLAINED 2ND DEPT)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DIRECTION TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT “ON NOTICE” (SECOND DEPT).
ROBBERY AND ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER 2ND DEPT.
Judge’s Statement Defense Counsel Should Confine Her Opening to What She Intended to Prove, Under the Facts, Did Not Shift Burden of Proof
IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE, THE FACT THAT THE INTRUDER KILLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESIDENT OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT BUILDING, IN A PRE-MEDITATED, TARGETED ATTACK DID NOT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, INSULATE THE LANDLORD FROM LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ALLEGEDLY BROKEN LOCK ON THE BUILDING’S EXTERIOR DOOR; THE 2ND DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH A LINE OF 1ST DEPARTMENT CASES (SECOND DEPT).
Emergency Doctrine Warranted Summary Judgment to Defendant Bus Company
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT REHAB FACILITY, FELL WHEN WALKING UNATTENDED BACK TO HIS BED FROM THE BATHROOM; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BED ALARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE; THAT CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EXPERT EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION (WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IF THE CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDED IN NEGLIGENCE, AS THE MOTION COURT HAD HELD) (SECOND DEPT).
HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN TWO ADJACENT SIDEWALK SLABS WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW; SLIP AND FALL ACTION DISMISSED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ERRONEOUS HUSBAND AND WIFE DESIGNATION ON THE DEED CREATED A TENANCY IN COMMON,... BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE...