Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro

16 Citing cases

  1. Kelly v. Farmingdale State Coll.

    215 A.D.3d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the petition/complaint which was to annul the portion of the determination of the vice president of student affairs that affirmed the board's determination that the petitioner/plaintiff violated the provision of the student code of conduct which prohibited violation of the campus housing residence license agreement. "In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those which seek to recover damages and declaratory relief, on the other hand" ( Matter of Rosenberg v. New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation, & Historic Preserv., 94 A.D.3d 1006, 1008, 943 N.Y.S.2d 123 ; seeMatter of Perrotta v. Syosset Cent. Sch. Dist., 210 A.D.3d 986, 989, 179 N.Y.S.3d 265 ; Matter of Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d 805, 808, 144 N.Y.S.3d 198 ). "The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment" ( Matter of Rosenberg v. New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation, & Historic Preserv., 94 A.D.3d at 1008, 943 N.Y.S.2d 123 ; seeMatter of Perrotta v. Syosset Cent. Sch. Dist., 210 A.D.3d at 989, 179 N.Y.S.3d 265 ; Matter of Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d at 808, 144 N.Y.S.3d 198 ).

  2. Marcus v. Planning Bd. of the Vill. of Wesley Hills

    199 A.D.3d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 7 times

    The permit must be granted if the application satisfies the criteria set forth in the zoning law (see Matter ofJuda Const., Ltd. v. Spencer, 21 A.D.3d 898, 900, 800 N.Y.S.2d 741, citing Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v. Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 1029, 395 N.Y.S.2d 631, 363 N.E.2d 1376 ). " ‘Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is ... sufficient basis upon which the zoning authority may deny the permit application’ " ( Matter of Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d 805, 807, 144 N.Y.S.3d 198, quoting Matter of Wegmans Enters. v. Lansing, 72 N.Y.2d 1000, 1001–1002, 534 N.Y.S.2d 372, 530 N.E.2d 1292 ; see Matter ofTandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 802, 402 N.Y.S.2d 388, 373 N.E.2d 282 ). A "zoning board ‘does not have authority to waive or modify any conditions set forth in the ordinance’ " ( Matter of Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d at 807, 144 N.Y.S.3d 198, quoting Matter ofDost v. Chamberlain–Hellman, 236 A.D.2d 471, 472, 653 N.Y.S.2d 672 ; see Matter ofNavaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay, 72 A.D.3d 823, 825, 898 N.Y.S.2d 237 ).

  3. Marcus v. Planning Bd. of the Vill. of Wesley Hills

    No. 2021-06618 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 24, 2021)

    The permit must be granted if the application satisfies the criteria set forth in the zoning law (see Matter of Juda Const., Ltd. v Spencer, 21 A.D.3d 898, 900, citing Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 1029). "'Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is... sufficient basis upon which the zoning authority may deny the permit application'" (Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d 805, 807, quoting Matter of Wegmans Enters. v Lansing, 72 N.Y.2d 1000, 1001-1002; see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 802). A "zoning board 'does not have authority to waive or modify any conditions set forth in the ordinance'" (Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d at 807, quoting Matter of Dost v Chamberlain-Hellman, 236 A.D.2d 471, 472; see Matter of Navaretta v Town of Oyster Bay, 72 A.D.3d 823, 825).

  4. Marcus v. Planning Bd. of the Vill. of Wesley Hills

    No. 2017-05963 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 24, 2021)

    The permit must be granted if the application satisfies the criteria set forth in the zoning law (see Matter of Juda Const., Ltd. v Spencer, 21 A.D.3d 898, 900, citing Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 1029). "'Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is . . . sufficient basis upon which the zoning authority may deny the permit application'" (Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d 805, 807, quoting Matter of Wegmans Enters. v Lansing, 72 N.Y.2d 1000, 1001-1002; see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 802). A "zoning board 'does not have authority to waive or modify any conditions set forth in the ordinance'" (Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d at 807, quoting Matter of Dost v Chamberlain-Hellman, 236 A.D.2d 471, 472; see Matter of Navaretta v Town of Oyster Bay, 72 A.D.3d 823, 825).

  5. Marcus v. Planning Bd. of the Vill. of Wesley Hills

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 6618 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    The permit must be granted if the application satisfies the criteria set forth in the zoning law (see Matter of Juda Const., Ltd. v Spencer, 21 A.D.3d 898, 900, citing Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 1029). "'Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is... sufficient basis upon which the zoning authority may deny the permit application'" (Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d 805, 807, quoting Matter of Wegmans Enters. v Lansing, 72 N.Y.2d 1000, 1001-1002; see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 802). A "zoning board 'does not have authority to waive or modify any conditions set forth in the ordinance'" (Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d at 807, quoting Matter of Dost v Chamberlain-Hellman, 236 A.D.2d 471, 472; see Matter of Navaretta v Town of Oyster Bay, 72 A.D.3d 823, 825).

  6. Marcus v. Planning Bd. of the Vill. of Wesley Hills

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 6618 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    The permit must be granted if the application satisfies the criteria set forth in the zoning law (see Matter of Juda Const., Ltd. v Spencer, 21 A.D.3d 898, 900, citing Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 1029). "'Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is . . . sufficient basis upon which the zoning authority may deny the permit application'" (Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d 805, 807, quoting Matter of Wegmans Enters. v Lansing, 72 N.Y.2d 1000, 1001-1002; see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 802). A "zoning board 'does not have authority to waive or modify any conditions set forth in the ordinance'" (Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d at 807, quoting Matter of Dost v Chamberlain-Hellman, 236 A.D.2d 471, 472; see Matter of Navaretta v Town of Oyster Bay, 72 A.D.3d 823, 825).

  7. Bonadonna v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Upper Brookville

    220 A.D.3d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    asible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created; which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance" ( Village Law § 7–712–b[3][b] ; seeMatter of Kaye v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Vil. of N. Haven, 185 A.D.3d 820, 821, 128 N.Y.S.3d 29 ). "The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational" ( Matter of Humphreys v. Somers Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 206 A.D.3d 1000, 1002, 168 N.Y.S.3d 871 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeMatter of Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d 805, 807–808, 144 N.Y.S.3d 198 ).

  8. Tampone v. Town of Red Hook Planning Bd.

    215 A.D.3d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    . Although the Planning Board "'does not have the authority to waive or modify any conditions set forth in the ordinance'" (Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d 805, 807, quoting Matter of Dost v Chamberlain-Hellman, 236 A.D.2d 471, 472), "[t]he permit must be granted if the application satisfies the criteria set forth in the zoning law" (Matter of Marcus v Planning Bd. of the Vil. of Wesley Hills, 199 A.D.3d at 1008; see Matter of Juda Constr., Ltd. v Spencer, 21 A.D.3d 898, 900). Here, the Planning Board certified that the proposal complied with applicable bulk and area requirements of the Zoning Code, showing that it considered those aspects of the site plan application as required under Zoning Code § 143-51(H). Furthermore, the record supports that determination, as the petitioners' contentions to the contrary, at best, reflect mere disagreements with the Planning Board's resolution of ambiguities in the Zoning Code and the evidence.

  9. Foster v. DeChance

    210 A.D.3d 1085 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    "The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational" ( Matter of Humphreys v. Somers Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 206 A.D.3d 1000, 1002, 168 N.Y.S.3d 871 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Matter of Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d 805, 807–808, 144 N.Y.S.3d 198 ).

  10. Crown Castle NG E. v. City of Rye

    207 A.D.3d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    " ‘In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand’ " ( Matter of Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 192 A.D.3d 805, 808, 144 N.Y.S.3d 198, quoting Matter of Bonacker Prop., LLC v. Village of E. Hampton Bd. of Trustees, 168 A.D.3d 928, 932, 93 N.Y.S.3d 328 ). Generally, in an action to recover damages, "[o]n a defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiff's alleged lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff's lack of standing.