Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ashman v. Planning Board of Town of East Hampton
Citations: 88 A.D.2d 923; 450 N.Y.S.2d 891; 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17262
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 7, 1982; New York; State Appellate Court
Consolidated proceedings were initiated under CPLR article 78 to review two determinations: (1) the Planning Board of the Town of East Hampton denied the petitioner’s application for a “subdivision waiver” on January 26, 1977, and (2) the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the petitioner’s application for variances and interpretation of the zoning ordinance to allow the subdivision on December 5, 1978. The appeal was from a judgment by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which remitted the matter to the Planning Board to grant the subdivision application and instructed the Zoning Board of Appeals to interpret the zoning ordinance in favor of the subdivision. The judgment was reversed on legal grounds, and both matters were remitted to the respective boards for further consideration. The court agreed with the Special Term that the beach area should be included in determining the lot area of the petitioner’s property. However, the directive to grant the application was deemed improper. Although the appellants’ exclusion of the beach area from the lot area calculation was found to be arbitrary and capricious, the court recognized that other relevant factors, including conservation and approvals from additional agencies, needed reconsideration based on the recalculated lot area. If the new lot area meets subdivision standards, the boards should evaluate whether health, safety, and conservation concerns allow the subdivision to proceed. The court noted that the petitioner expressed willingness to obtain necessary approvals from the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Suffolk County Planning Commission, indicating an inconsistency with his request for the application to be granted outright. The decision included concurring opinions from Judges Weinstein, O'Connor, Thompson, and Boyers.