Petitioners owned adjacent parcels of real property in the Village of Monroe zoned for general business. In 2012, Petitioners contracted to sell the parcels to Goddard Development Partners IV, LLC, who planned to use the parcels for tire sales and automotive repair services. The Zoning Board of Appeals then denied Goddard's application for an interpretation of the Village Code’s zoning provisions that the proposed use was permitted as of right, alternatively determining the proposed use was a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit and site plan approval. Petitioners brought an Article 78 proceeding challenging the determination, and the Supreme Court, Orange County annulled the determination, and directed the Building Inspector of the Village of Monroe to deem the proposed use to be a permitted use. The ZBA then appealed.

On appeal, the Appellate Division found that under the Zoning Code, uses permitted as of right and conditional uses were set forth in two zoning schedules. The permitted uses enumerated in column A of the Table of Use Requirements of Zoning Schedule I–F included, “retail sales” and “repair service, including automotive”. However, column C listed “tire sales and service” among the conditional uses. § 200–3 of the Village Code provides that “in the event of conflict in the terminology of any section or part thereof of this chapter, the more restrictive provisions shall control.” As such, the ZBA's determination that the proposed use of the properties for tire sales was a conditional use was correct.

The case is Robert E. Hayell Revocable Trust v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Monroe, 127 A.D.3d 1095 (App. Div. 2015).