Matter of Watkins v. Town of N. E. Zoning Bd. of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Watkins v. Town of N. E. Zoning Bd. of Appeals

136 A.D.3d 836, 24 N.Y.S.3d 521

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2016

Docket2014-01420

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 836 (Matter of Watkins v. Town of N. E. Zoning Bd. 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

Matter of Watkins v. Town of N. E. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 136 A.D.3d 836, 24 N.Y.S.3d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of North East Zoning Board of Appeals dated August 27, 2013, that, under the Zoning Law of the Town of North East, an “educational center” is permitted to include housing and dining facilities, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated January 3, 2014, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

Generally, “a zoning board’s interpretation of its zoning ordinance is entitled to great deference and will not be overturned by the courts unless unreasonable or irrational” *837 (Matter of Green 2009, Inc. v Weiss, 114 AD3d 788, 788 [2014]; see Matter of Toys “R” Us v Silva, 89 NY2d 411, 418-419 [1996]; Matter of Henderson v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 72 AD3d 684, 685 [2010]). “ ‘[W]here the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used’ ” (Matter of Raritan Dev. Corp. v Silva, 91 NY2d 98, 107 [1997] [emphasis omitted], quoting Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y. v City of New York, 41 NY2d 205, 208 [1976]). Here, pursuant to the plain meaning of the language of sections 98-5 and 98-33 of the Zoning Law of the Town of North East, it is permissible for an “educational center” to include housing and dining facilities. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Maltese and LaSalle, 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 Town of North East Zoning Board of Appeals dated August 27, 2013, that, under the Zoning Law of the Town of North East, an “educational center” is permitted to include housing and dining facilities, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated January 3, 2014, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

Generally, “a zoning board’s interpretation of its zoning ordinance is entitled to great deference and will not be overturned by the courts unless unreasonable or irrational” *837 (Matter of Green 2009, Inc. v Weiss, 114 AD3d 788, 788 [2014]; see Matter of Toys “R” Us v Silva, 89 NY2d 411, 418-419 [1996]; Matter of Henderson v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 72 AD3d 684, 685 [2010]). “ ‘[W]here the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used’ ” (Matter of Raritan Dev. Corp. v Silva, 91 NY2d 98, 107 [1997] [emphasis omitted], quoting Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y. v City of New York, 41 NY2d 205, 208 [1976]). Here, pursuant to the plain meaning of the language of sections 98-5 and 98-33 of the Zoning Law of the Town of North East, it is permissible for an “educational center” to include housing and dining facilities. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 836, 24 N.Y.S.3d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-watkins-v-town-of-n-e-zoning-bd-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack