MATTER OF MKT. SQUARE PROPS., LTD. v. Town of Guilderland Zoning Bd. of Appeals

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF MKT. SQUARE PROPS., LTD. v. Town of Guilderland Zoning Bd. of Appeals

489 N.E.2d 741, 66 N.Y.2d 893, 498 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17984

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 489 N.E.2d 741 (MATTER OF MKT. SQUARE PROPS., LTD. v. Town of Guilderland Zoning Bd. 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

MATTER OF MKT. SQUARE PROPS., LTD. v. Town of Guilderland Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 489 N.E.2d 741, 66 N.Y.2d 893, 498 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17984 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

Respondent’s determination that appellant’s application for a special use permit did not meet town zoning ordinance standards, in that the proposed shopping center would create undue traffic congestion and hazard to the nearby school, is sufficiently supported by the record (see, Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 43 NY2d 801, 802). While expert opinion regarding traffic patterns may not be disregarded in favor of generalized community objections (see, Green v Lo Grande, 96 AD2d 524, appeal dismissed 61 NY2d 758), here there was other basis in the record for respondent’s determination, including evidence from the expert that the shopping center would generate significant increased traffic, to which evidence respondent’s discretion and commonsense judgments might be applied in accordance with the town ordinance (see, Cummings v Town Bd., 62 NY2d 833, 835; 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 24.15, at 294 [3d ed]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), 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.

Respondent’s determination that appellant’s application for a special use permit did not meet town zoning ordinance standards, in that the proposed shopping center would create undue traffic congestion and hazard to the nearby school, is sufficiently supported by the record (see, Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 43 NY2d 801, 802). While expert opinion regarding traffic patterns may not be disregarded in favor of generalized community objections (see, Green v Lo Grande, 96 AD2d 524, appeal dismissed 61 NY2d 758), here there was other basis in the record for respondent’s determination, including evidence from the expert that the shopping center would generate significant increased traffic, to which evidence respondent’s discretion and commonsense judgments might be applied in accordance with the town ordinance (see, Cummings v Town Bd., 62 NY2d 833, 835; 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 24.15, at 294 [3d ed]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 N.E.2d 741, 66 N.Y.2d 893, 498 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-mkt-square-props-ltd-v-town-of-guilderland-zoning-bd-of-ny-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack