Wegmans Enterprises, Inc. v. Lansing

530 N.E.2d 1292, 72 N.Y.2d 1000, 534 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 2688
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 20, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 530 N.E.2d 1292 (Wegmans Enterprises, Inc. v. Lansing) 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
Wegmans Enterprises, Inc. v. Lansing, 530 N.E.2d 1292, 72 N.Y.2d 1000, 534 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 2688 (N.Y. 1988).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

Zones which qualify for special exception permits represent a threshold legislative acceptance that the specified use accords with the general municipal zoning plan (Matter of Lee Realty Co. v Village of Spring Val., 61 NY2d 892, 893; Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v Van Wagner, 41 NY2d 1028, 1029). Unlike the unnecessary hardship standard governing variances, a special exception permit is available upon a showing of compliance with legislatively imposed conditions pertaining to the intended use (Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals, 30 NY2d 238, 243-244). Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is, however, a sufficient basis upon which the zoning authority [1002]*1002may deny the permit application (Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 43 NY2d 801, 802).

The uses permitted in the Town of DeWitt’s Special Business Transitional District include "[r]etail stores, professional offices, business offices, personal service establishments, mortuaries and undertaking establishments, provided that no business is conducted out-of-doors” (DeWitt Town Code § 53-26 [A] [4]; § 53-23 [D] [1]). The Board found, with substantial evidence in the record, that petitioners’ otherwise qualifying uses nevertheless failed to comply with at least two legislated preconditions, i.e., the impact of unspecified intended uses of a planned 20,000 square foot structure as being reasonably compatible in all respects with the neighborhood and the adverse affects of aggravated traffic conditions. The courts may not, therefore, disturb the Board’s denial of the special permit in this case.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Matter of 260 BC, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of E. Hampton
2025 NY Slip Op 01623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Chestnut Petroleum Dist., Inc. v. Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Bd.
222 A.D.3d 748 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of 1640 State Rte. 104, LLC v. Town of Ontario Planning Bd.
2022 NY Slip Op 04441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Marcus v. Planning Bd. of the Vil. of Wesley Hills
2021 NY Slip Op 06618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Rex v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Sennett
2021 NY Slip Op 03688 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro
2021 NY Slip Op 01416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v. Fleming
2017 NY Slip Op 9222 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Lazarus v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Malverne
140 A.D.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Nathan v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead
125 A.D.3d 866 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of M&V 99 Franklin Realty Corp. v. Weiss
124 A.D.3d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Frigault v. Town of Richfield Planning Board
107 A.D.3d 1347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
White Castle System, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals
93 A.D.3d 731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay
72 A.D.3d 823 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Franklin Square Donut System, LLC v. Wright
63 A.D.3d 927 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
G & P Investing Co. v. Foley
61 A.D.3d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
North Shore F.C.P., Inc. v. Mammina
22 A.D.3d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Burke v. Dickman
6 A.D.3d 1163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Tricon Global Restaurants, Inc. v. Curran
309 A.D.2d 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
PDH Properties, LLC v. Planning Board of Milton
298 A.D.2d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Eddy v. Niefer
297 A.D.2d 410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
530 N.E.2d 1292, 72 N.Y.2d 1000, 534 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 2688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wegmans-enterprises-inc-v-lansing-ny-1988.