Brick Hill Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

New York Court of Appeals

Brick Hill Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

420 N.E.2d 968, 53 N.Y.2d 621, 438 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2293

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 420 N.E.2d 968 (Brick Hill Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brick Hill Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 420 N.E.2d 968, 53 N.Y.2d 621, 438 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2293 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

After a hearing the zoning board of appeals denied appellant’s application for a special exception use permit to [623]*623excavate sand and gravel. There was substantial evidence in the record to support, and thus a rational basis for, the determination of the board made on the grounds that the proposed use (1) would substantially increase truck traffic, thereby posing a threat to the movement of school buses and creating unreasonably hazardous traffic conditions and a danger to public safety; (2)’would create unacceptably high noise and air pollution levels which would bring about a diminution in property values in the neighborhood; and (3) would increase the extent and frequency of flooding in the area. Such findings comport with the standards set forth in the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. Nor is the determination affected by any error of law. In particular even if it be assumed that appellant timely raised the contention that the board’s determination was improperly. based on community pressure, such contention is not supported by evidentiary proof in the record or inferences which might be drawn from such proof.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

After a hearing the zoning board of appeals denied appellant’s application for a special exception use permit to [623]*623excavate sand and gravel. There was substantial evidence in the record to support, and thus a rational basis for, the determination of the board made on the grounds that the proposed use (1) would substantially increase truck traffic, thereby posing a threat to the movement of school buses and creating unreasonably hazardous traffic conditions and a danger to public safety; (2)’would create unacceptably high noise and air pollution levels which would bring about a diminution in property values in the neighborhood; and (3) would increase the extent and frequency of flooding in the area. Such findings comport with the standards set forth in the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. Nor is the determination affected by any error of law. In particular even if it be assumed that appellant timely raised the contention that the board’s determination was improperly. based on community pressure, such contention is not supported by evidentiary proof in the record or inferences which might be drawn from such proof.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

420 N.E.2d 968, 53 N.Y.2d 621, 438 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brick-hill-construction-corp-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-ny-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack