Bracke v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Philipstown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bracke v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Philipstown

304 A.D.2d 663, 757 N.Y.S.2d 482

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 14, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 663 (Bracke v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Philipstown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bracke v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Philipstown, 304 A.D.2d 663, 757 N.Y.S.2d 482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Philipstown dated July 16, 2001, which granted the appeal of Dorothea Lang from the denial of a building permit to raze her existing house and construct a new house having insufficient setbacks above the flood plain, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated March 29, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Dorothea Lang.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a de[664]*664termination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action taken is illegal or arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374 [1995]; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441 [1978]). The Supreme Court properly concluded that the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Philipstown was not illegal or arbitrary and capricious. The requested variance is not substantial and will not have an undesirable effect on the character of the neighborhood, and the difficulties were not self-created (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, supra at 384).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Philipstown dated July 16, 2001, which granted the appeal of Dorothea Lang from the denial of a building permit to raze her existing house and construct a new house having insufficient setbacks above the flood plain, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated March 29, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Dorothea Lang.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a de[664]*664termination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action taken is illegal or arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374 [1995]; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441 [1978]). The Supreme Court properly concluded that the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Philipstown was not illegal or arbitrary and capricious. The requested variance is not substantial and will not have an undesirable effect on the character of the neighborhood, and the difficulties were not self-created (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, supra at 384).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 663, 757 N.Y.S.2d 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bracke-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-of-town-of-philipstown-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack