Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of FRANCIS DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT CO., INC., and Walter J. Floss, Petitioners-Appellants, v. TOWN OF CLARENCE, Kathleen E. Hallock, Ian McPherson, Barbara Guida, Thomas Sweeney, and Scott Bylewski, Constituting Town Board of Town of Clarence, Respondents-Respondents.
Supreme Court erred in denying that part of the petition seeking to annul the determination of the Town Board of respondent Town of Clarence (Town) denying petitioners' “request for ‘referral to the Planning Board’ ” with respect to petitioners' application for site plan approval of a proposed mini-storage facility on petitioners' property. It is undisputed that, since the prior appeal in this matter (Matter of Francis Dev. & Mgt. Co. v. Town of Clarence, 306 A.D.2d 880, 761 N.Y.S.2d 760), petitioners have reconfigured the project so that it will lie entirely within that part of petitioners' property that is zoned major arterial. Because the mini-storage facility is a use permitted as of right in a major arterial district (see id. at 881, 761 N.Y.S.2d 760), it was arbitrary and capricious for the Town to use its Master Plan 2015 (Master Plan) as the basis for denying petitioners' request for referral to the Town Planning Board (see generally Matter of Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corp. v. Town of Newstead Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 161 A.D.2d 1187, 1188, 559 N.Y.S.2d 48, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 803, 568 N.Y.S.2d 15, 569 N.E.2d 874; Matter of Ferrigan v. Thompson, 135 A.D.2d 953, 954, 522 N.Y.S.2d 362, appeal dismissed 72 N.Y.2d 854, 532 N.Y.S.2d 370, 528 N.E.2d 522). Whether the project conflicts with the Master Plan would be relevant only if a special exception use permit were required (see Zoning Ordinance of Town of Clarence § 30-71[A][7] ), and such a permit is not required in light of petitioners' reconfiguration of the project. We therefore reverse the judgment and grant the petition in part by annulling the determination, and we remit the matter to the Town Board to refer petitioners' application to the Town Planning Board.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is granted in part and the matter is remitted to the Town Board of respondent Town of Clarence for further proceedings.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 01, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)