Petitioners states that Respondents' decision are forcing conditions upon them; Court denied and dismissed Petition
The Matter of David Layne v Eastchester Planning Board
Pursuant to Article 78, petitioner sought the court to review a decision of the Town of Eastcheaster Planning Board.
Jalo Realty, LLC owns three adjacent properties that are designated as three separate tax lots. One lot is completely within a single-family zoning district, and another lot is completely within a retail business district that allows multi-family residential units. The third lot is situated in between those other two lots. This means that it is divided by the boundary between the two zoning district.
In June 2007, Jalo Realty, LLC applied for site plan approval to build 10 multi-family units on the three lots with the respondents. Jalo Realty, also, requested a special permit that “provides that where the boundary of a district divides a lot, a special use permit may be granted to extend a lawful conforming use on that portion of the lot lying in the less restricted district 75 feet into the more restricted district.
In February 2008, the board granted the application on grounds that Jalo demolish the present buildings and merge the three lots into one tax lot. The petitioners then sought to appeal, which the court denied and dismissed due to respondents decision had a rational basis. Jalo Realty, LLc stated that respondents’ decision was in conformance with the legislatively forced conditions.
Court stated that the petitioners’ contentions are without merit.
Read more about this Article 78 case here.
To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78
