Romanoff Estates v. Town of Kent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romanoff Estates v. Town of Kent

106 A.D.2d 438, 483 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21476

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 10, 1984·Published

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Kent Planning Board which approved appellant’s application to construct a 40-space parking area as an accessory use, which was consolidated with an action for a judgment declaring that such a parking area is [439]*439not a permitted use under the applicable zoning ordinance, the appeal is from a judgment and order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Beisheim, J.), dated September 6,1983, which, inter alia, annulled said determination as arbitrary and capricious.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs to petitioners-respondents.

Special Term was correct in its determination that a lot for overnight parking of appellant’s trucks could not be considered an accessory use to the principal use, where the conditions placed upon the principal use precluded, among other things, overnight outside parking of trucks. Thompson, J. P., O’Connor, Niehoff and Boyers, 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 Kent Planning Board which approved appellant’s application to construct a 40-space parking area as an accessory use, which was consolidated with an action for a judgment declaring that such a parking area is [439]*439not a permitted use under the applicable zoning ordinance, the appeal is from a judgment and order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Beisheim, J.), dated September 6,1983, which, inter alia, annulled said determination as arbitrary and capricious.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs to petitioners-respondents.

Special Term was correct in its determination that a lot for overnight parking of appellant’s trucks could not be considered an accessory use to the principal use, where the conditions placed upon the principal use precluded, among other things, overnight outside parking of trucks. Thompson, J. P., O’Connor, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Romanoff Estates v. Town of Kent, 106 A.D.2d 438, 483 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

106 A.D.2d 438 (Romanoff Estates v. Town of Kent) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.