Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
We do not find it necessary to pass upon the question of whether the proposed tower is a permitted "customarily incidental" accessory use, within the meaning of the zoning ordinance, for in no event has appellant shown a clear legal right to the relief demanded. If the tower is not a permissible accessory use under the cited section, the building permit was of course properly denied. If it be assumed that...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.