Matter of Schoen v. Bowne

2 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Wiltwyck School v. Hill

    14 A.D.2d 198 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)   Cited 3 times

    Respondents' determination as to the nature of petitioner's activities was not arbitrary or capricious, and their construction of the Zoning Ordinance was proper under its plain language. Under the circumstances, their determination may not be disturbed by this court (cf. People ex rel. Hudson-Harlem Val. Tit. Mtge. Co. v. Walker, 282 N.Y. 400, 405; Matter of Schoen v. Bowne, 273 App. Div. 1020, affd. 298 N.Y. 611; City of Buffalo v. Roadway Tr. Co., 303 N.Y. 453, 462). The fact that petitioner is subject to supervision by the State and the fact that the proposed site had been approved by a State agency, do not render respondents' determination either invalid or in violation of petitioner's constitutional rights (cf. Matter of Jewish Mental Health Soc. v. Village of Hastings, 268 N.Y. 458).

  2. Inc. Village of Asharoken v. Pitassy

    119 A.D.2d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)   Cited 11 times

    Inasmuch as the restriction imposed by the village on the use of the subject property finds its justification in the police power exercised in the interests of the public welfare (see, Matter of Westchester Reform Temple v Brown, 22 N.Y.2d 488, 493), it is valid. While an educational use may not be wholly excluded from a residential district (Matter of New York Inst. of Technology v Le Boutillier, 33 N.Y.2d 125, 130), case law in this State reveals that the concept of "educational use" does not include activities which are primarily recreational in nature (see, Matter of Schoen v. Bowne, 298 N.Y. 611, affg 273 App. Div. 1020; Matter of 4M Club v. Andrews, 11 A.D.2d 720; 12 N.Y. Jur 2d, Buildings, Zoning, and Land Controls, ยง 179, at 178). Moreover, it has been held that instructional programs involving classes in ceramics and horsemanship are not educational in nature (Matter of Schweizer v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 8 Misc.2d 878; Village of E. Hampton v. Mulford, 188 Misc. 1037; see also, Matter of Donegan v. Griffin, 270 App. Div. 937 [where an order granting a variance for a limited time to permit the operation, on property in a residential zone, of a riding academy was reversed on the ground that the record failed to disclose adequate facts for the determination]).