Tandem Holding Corp. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Hempstead, 373 N.E.2d 282 (NY 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Tandem Holding Corp. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Hempstead, 373 N.E.2d 282 (NY 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
84 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: G & P Investing Co. v. Foley (nyappdiv, 2009-04-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) G & P Investing Co. v. Foley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
While an applicant for a special permit must still satisfy the local legislative standards for the issuance of the permit, those standards cannot be so general or imprecise as to give the board or agency considering the application unfettered discretion in granting or denying permits (see Matter of Robert Lee Realty Co. v Village of Spring Val., 61 NY2d 892, 893 [1984]; Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 NY2d 801, 802 [1977]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) West Beekmantown Neighborhood Ass'n v. Zoning Board of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Furthermore, in light of the ZBA’s extensive review of the proposal, its consideration of the various factors set forth in article 6 of the Town Zoning Law (see Town of Beekmantown Zoning Law §§ 610, 635), and the imposition of numerous conditions to ensure that the project would comply with the Town’s zoning standards (see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 NY2d 801, 802 [1977]; Matter of Connors v Sullivan, 171 AD2d 982, 982 [1991]), the ZBA’s issuance of a conditional use permit to Windhorse was neither arbitrary and capricious nor an a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) North Shore F.C.P., Inc. v. Mammina
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
In this case, the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead (hereinafter the Board) determined that the petitioner’s proposal to operate a sandwich shop at the subject location failed to satisfy all of the requisite criteria for the issuance of a conditional use permit (see generally Matter of Wegmans Enters. v Lansing, 72 NY2d 1000, 1001 [1988]; Cummings v Town Bd. of N. Castle, 62 NY2d 833, 835 [1984]; Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 NY2d 801, 802 [1977]), as the proposal would negatively impact traffic, parking, and safety con…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Francis Development & Management Co. v. Town of Clarence
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Section 30-71 (A) (7) of the Zoning Ordinance establishes as a condition for the issuance of a special exception use permit that “[s]uch use shall not conflict with the direction of building development in accordance with any Master Plan or portion thereof which has been adopted by the Planning Board.” Compliance with that condition “must be shown before any exception can be secured” (Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 NY2d 801, 802 [1977]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Marcus v. Planning Bd. of the Vil. of Wesley Hills
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
Home Constr. v Van Wagner , 41 NY2d 1028, 1029 ). "'Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is . . . sufficient basis upon which the zoning authority may deny the permit application'" ( Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro , 192 AD3d 805, 807 , quoting Matter of Wegmans Enters. v Lansing , 72 NY2d 1000, 1001-1002 ; see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead , 43 NY2d 801, 802 ).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
"Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is . . . sufficient basis upon which the zoning authority may deny the permit application" ( Matter of Wegmans Enters. v Lansing , 72 NY2d 1000, 1001-1002 ; see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead , 43 NY2d 801, 802 ; Matter of Sullivan v Town Bd. of Town of Riverhead , 102 AD2d 113, 115 ), and a zoning board "does not have authority to waive or modify any conditions set forth in the ordinance" ( Matter of Dost v Chamberlain-Hellman , 236 AD2d 471, 472 ; see Matter of Navaretta v Tow…
discussed Cited "see" Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
“Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is . . . sufficient basis upon which the zoning authority may deny the permit application” (Matter of Wegmans Enters. v Lansing, 72 NY2d 1000, 1001-1002 [1988]; see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 NY2d 801, 802 [1977]; Matter of Sullivan v Town Bd. of Town of Riverhead, 102 AD2d 113, 115 [1984]), and a zoning board “does not have authority to waive or modify any conditions set forth in the ordinance” (Matter of Dost v Chamberlain-Hellman, 236 AD2d 471, 472 [1997]; see…
examined Cited "see" Sunrise Development, Inc. v. Town of Huntington (3×)
E.D.N.Y · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
A developer has no vested right to use his land in a particular manner until he begins to build on that land, see, e.g., Downey v. Village of Ardsley, 3 A.D.2d 663 , 158 N.Y.S.2d 306 (2d Dep’t 1957), and “it is well-settled that entitlement to a special permit is not a matter of right and compliance with ordinance standards must be shown before a special permit can be granted.” L & M Realty v. Village of Millbrook Planning Bd., 207 A.D.2d 346, 347 , 615 N.Y.S.2d 434, 436 (2d Dep’t 1994); see Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 802 , 373 …
discussed Cited "see" Marriott Corp. v. Rose
N.Y. App. Div. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
Where the use is not expressly listed as a permitted one in a use district, board action "refusing to grant a 'special exception’ is by definition and in essential character discretionary and not denial of a right” (Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin, 11 NY2d 20, 24 ; see, Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, supra).
cited Cited "see" Cicenia v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven
N.Y. App. Div. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 74 AD2d 810, 811 , affd 53 NY2d 621 ; see, Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 43 NY2d 801 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of 153 Mulford Assoc., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of E. Hampton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
The denial of a special exception permit must be rational and supported by evidence in the record ( see Matter of 666 OCRTT, LLC v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead , 200 AD3d at 684; Matter of M & V 99 Franklin Realty Corp. v Weiss , 124 AD3d 783, 785 ; see also Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead , 43 NY2d 801 ; see generally Matter of Sasso v Osgood , 86 NY2d at 384 n 2).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Pioneer-Evans Co. v. Garvin
N.Y. App. Div. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
Home Constr. v Van Wagner, supra, at 1029; see also, Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 43 NY2d 801 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." De Sena v. Board of Zoning Appeals
NY · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
Absent specific authorization which provides sufficient guidance to prevent complete arbitrariness, a Zoning Board of Appeals may not deny an area variance for aesthetic reasons alone (see, generally, 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], § 18.62; see, also, Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 NY2d 801, 802 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Tandem Holding Corp.
v.
Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 19, 1977.
373 N.E.2d 282
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, W. Kenneth Chave, Jr., Town Attorney (Eugene Kirby Ferencik of counsel), for appellant., Vincent J. De Rosa for respondent.
Cited by 66 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order of the Appellate Division reversed, with costs, and the determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals reinstated.

The determination of the board, that petitioner’s application did not nor could not, through the imposition of reasonable conditions, meet the standards in the ordinance governing the[*802] granting of special exceptions, is sufficiently supported in the record. There was proof that development of a private parking lot in a residential district abutting, a proposed shopping center in a business district would significantly alter the character and quality of the surroúnding residential area, diminish property values, and increase traffic, congestion.

Of course, characterization of a parking lot as a special use or exception permitted with board approval precludes the board from arbitrarily denying applications, and denial solely because there is a general objection to the special use or éxception would be arbitrary (Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v Van Wagner, 41 NY2d 1028; see Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238, 243-245). It does not follow, however, that requests for special exceptions must always be granted subject only to the imposition of reasonable conditions.

Entitlement to a special exception is not a matter of right (Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin, 11 NY2d 20, 24). The stated standards in the ordinance guiding the board’s consideration of special exception applications condition availability of a special exception, and compliance with those standards must be shown before any exception can be secured (e.g., Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v Oaks, 55 AD2d 809; Matter of C & G Developers v Granito, 53 AD2d 612; Matter of Klein v Seigel, 47 AD2d 924; see 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], § 19.01; 2 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning, pp 54-1-54-30; see, also, ALI, Model Land Development Code, § 2-207, subd [2]). In the North Shore case (supra), resolution of the problem was both simpler and different from this case only because the ordinance there involved stated no elaborated standards.

One caveat is appropriate. Standards governing issuance of special exceptions may not be so general or tautological as to allow unchecked discretion on the part of the zoning board (see 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], § 19.11; 2 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning, pp 54-14-54-30). No such infirmity has been demonstrated to exist in the instant ordinance.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.