Gladstone v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gladstone v. Zoning Board of Appeals

13 A.D.3d 445, 785 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15216

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 445 (Gladstone v. Zoning Board of Appeals) 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

Gladstone v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 13 A.D.3d 445, 785 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Southampton dated March 28, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a wetlands permit and a variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated July 14, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Southampton (hereinafter the Board) was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Retail Prop. Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 98 NY2d 190 [2002]; Matter of Stoppelman v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Scarsdale, 232 AD2d 571 [1996]). The record contains conflicting expert opinions regarding the environmental impact of the proposed project, and the Board was entitled to credit the findings of those experts who concluded that the project would [446]*446have a substantial adverse impact on the protection of the tidal wetlands (see Matter of Retail Prop. Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, supra at 196). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Santucci, J.E, Luciano, Schmidt and Adams, 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 Incorporated Village of Southampton dated March 28, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a wetlands permit and a variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated July 14, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Southampton (hereinafter the Board) was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Retail Prop. Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 98 NY2d 190 [2002]; Matter of Stoppelman v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Scarsdale, 232 AD2d 571 [1996]). The record contains conflicting expert opinions regarding the environmental impact of the proposed project, and the Board was entitled to credit the findings of those experts who concluded that the project would [446]*446have a substantial adverse impact on the protection of the tidal wetlands (see Matter of Retail Prop. Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, supra at 196). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Santucci, J.E, Luciano, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 445, 785 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gladstone-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack