Despite a code provision that allowed uses other than single-family residences in the R-1 zoning district, so long as those uses were “of the same general character as those permitted or [uses] which will not be detrimental to other uses,” the Planning Board denied site plan approval for a residence for the elderly. The residence was to be occupied by the owners/applicants, as well as by 10 others. Upon review of the decision making process, the court determined that the decision of the Planning Board, that the proposed use would be detrimental to the other uses, was not supported by evidence in the record and as such was arbitrary and capricious. Rather, the court said that the Board had impermissibly based its decision on general objections or conclusory findings. In putting forth this decision, the Appellate Division affirmed the ruling of the lower court.
Taft v Village of Newark Planning Board 74 A.D.3d 1840, 904 N.Y.S.2d 839 (A.D. 4th Dept. 6/11/2010).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ad4/Court/Decisions/2010/06-11-10/PDF/0790.pdf