Durland v. Maresco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Durland v. Maresco

53 A.D.2d 643, 384 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13360

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 14, 1976·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to review respondents’ determination, dated February 4, 1975, which, after a hearing, denied petitioners’ application for preliminary subdivision plat approval, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 26, 1975, which confirmed the determination. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The evidence adduced at the hearing supports the determination of the planning board. The prosposed plat did not comply with the amended zoning ordinance; the "sketch plan” ■ approval of the cluster development did not vest petitioners with the right to develop in accordance with that plan absent final plat approval (see Village Law, §§ 7-738, 7-708, subd 2). Moreover, the evidence supports the determination of the planning board that the proposed subdivision will overutilize the sewage treatment plant (cf. Matter of Parmadale Development v Planning Bd. of Town of Parma, 35 AD2d 904). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, 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 inter alia to review respondents’ determination, dated February 4, 1975, which, after a hearing, denied petitioners’ application for preliminary subdivision plat approval, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 26, 1975, which confirmed the determination. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The evidence adduced at the hearing supports the determination of the planning board. The prosposed plat did not comply with the amended zoning ordinance; the "sketch plan” ■ approval of the cluster development did not vest petitioners with the right to develop in accordance with that plan absent final plat approval (see Village Law, §§ 7-738, 7-708, subd 2). Moreover, the evidence supports the determination of the planning board that the proposed subdivision will overutilize the sewage treatment plant (cf. Matter of Parmadale Development v Planning Bd. of Town of Parma, 35 AD2d 904). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Durland v. Maresco, 53 A.D.2d 643, 384 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

53 A.D.2d 643 (Durland v. Maresco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related