Leibring v. Planning Board of Town of Newfane

144 A.D.2d 903, 534 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14346
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 15, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 903 (Leibring v. Planning Board of Town of Newfane) 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
Leibring v. Planning Board of Town of Newfane, 144 A.D.2d 903, 534 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, determination annulled and matter remitted to respondent Board, for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the Planning Board’s decision to grant a special use permit for the operation of a mobile home park on Bixler Road. In its decision to grant the permit, the Board makes only conclusory statements which merely restate the statutory requirements. These statements fail to provide the factual basis for the Board’s decision and foreclose intelligent judicial review (2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice §§ 24.25, 25.32 [3d ed]; Matter of Greene v Johnson, 121 AD2d 632, 633; Matter of Kadish v Simpson, 55 AD2d 911). Therefore, the matter is remitted to respondent, which is directed to set forth the factual basis for its decision.

Further, the Board’s determination of environmental non-significance is merely a conclusory statement without a reasoned elaboration of its basis (see, Matter Tehan v Scrivani, 97 AD2d 769, 771). On remittal, the Board shall provide a reasoned elaboration for its environmental determination.

We further find that the Board went beyond the scope of its authority in granting, as part of this special use permit, the unrestricted commercial sale of mobile homes at this facility because this activity does not constitute "appurtenant facilities and accessory services for residents only” (Town of Newfane Zoning Ordinance § 2-2-45). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — art 78.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

Gabrielle Realty Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Village of Freeport
24 A.D.3d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Tonery v. Planning Board
256 A.D.2d 1097 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Serota v. Town Board
191 A.D.2d 700 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Swan v. Depew
167 A.D.2d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Morrone v. Bennett
164 A.D.2d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Rendino's Truck & Auto Collision, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
159 A.D.2d 949 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Sanzone v. City of Rome
158 A.D.2d 991 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 A.D.2d 903, 534 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leibring-v-planning-board-of-town-of-newfane-nyappdiv-1988.