Speonk Sand & Gravel Co. v. Town of Southampton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Speonk Sand & Gravel Co. v. Town of Southampton

127 A.D.2d 828, 512 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43322

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 23, 1987·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Southampton, dated March 14, 1985, which denied the petitioner’s application for a renewal permit to mine sand and gravel.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The denial of the petitioner’s application to substantially expand its mining operations, a nonconforming use since 1972 when the area was rezoned from an industrial classification to a residential one, was supported by substantial evidence and [829] was a reasonable exercise of the Town Board’s zoning authority (see, Town Law §261). The petitioner failed to establish that its prior operations on the property north of Sunrise Highway in Speonk evidenced an "intent to appropriate the entire parcel” for such operations (cf., Matter of Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v Weise, 51 NY2d 278, 286). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Southampton, dated March 14, 1985, which denied the petitioner’s application for a renewal permit to mine sand and gravel.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The denial of the petitioner’s application to substantially expand its mining operations, a nonconforming use since 1972 when the area was rezoned from an industrial classification to a residential one, was supported by substantial evidence and [829] was a reasonable exercise of the Town Board’s zoning authority (see, Town Law §261). The petitioner failed to establish that its prior operations on the property north of Sunrise Highway in Speonk evidenced an "intent to appropriate the entire parcel” for such operations (cf., Matter of Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v Weise, 51 NY2d 278, 286). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Speonk Sand & Gravel Co. v. Town of Southampton, 127 A.D.2d 828, 512 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

127 A.D.2d 828 (Speonk Sand & Gravel Co. v. Town of Southampton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related