You are here: / Land Use
, ,

THE MUNICIPAL LAW PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES JUNK YARDS TO BE LICENSED DOES NOT APPLY IN PLAINTIFF TOWN WHERE DEFENDANT OPERATES HER JUNK YARD; A LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE LICENSURE, IS THE CONTROLLING LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Municipal Law provision which requires junk yards to be licensed does not apply to defendant because the local zoning ordinance is the controlling law:

… [T]he parties dispute whether General Municipal Law § 136 applies to junkyards located within plaintiff [town]. That statute provides that it “shall not be construed to . . . supersede . . . ordinances or local laws for the control of junk yards . . . and shall not be deemed to apply to any municipality which has any ordinance or local law or regulation to license or regulate junk yards” (General Municipal Law § 136 [12]).

We agree with defendant that General Municipal Law § 136 is inapplicable to plaintiff’s regulation of her junkyard inasmuch as plaintiff has a local “zoning ordinance[] . . . for the control of junk yards . . . in effect” … . Plaintiff’s Zoning Ordinance … defines the term “Junkyard,” establishes Zoning Districts, including, as relevant here, an “Agricultural/Residential District” and an “Industrial Zoning District,” provides that a junkyard is allowed only in an Industrial Zoning District and only with a Special Use Permit, and governs the application for and issuance of Special Use Permits. Plaintiff [town] therefore effectively implemented an “ordinance or local law or regulation to license or regulate junk yards” … . It is of no moment that plaintiff’s Zoning Ordinance did not include a specific policy for issuing a license for junkyards … . Town of Montezuma v Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 06433, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: By its own terms the General Municipal Law provision which requires licensure of junk yards does not apply in towns that have a zoning ordinance which regulates junk yards, even where the ordinance does not require licensure.

 

, , ,

THE ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A USE VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLAR ENERGY GENERATION FACILITY WAS “ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS;” MATTER REMITTED FOR ISSUANCE OF THE VARIANCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined petitioners were entitled to a use variance for the construction of a solar energy generation facility, finding the denial of the variance “arbitrary and capricious:”

… [R]espondent erred in failing to afford petitioners a reduced showing relative to their application as a public utility because of the project’s minimal impact … . That the project will have a minimal impact was not only recognized by Supreme Court, but also is fully supported by the evidence in the record, including the unanimous State Environmental Quality Review Act (see ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) determination which found no significant environmental impacts … . * * *

… [O]ne cannot quarrel with the premise that New York State’s goal of transitioning to renewable energy is designed to benefit the public at large, and this project is in line with that goal … . * * *

… [P]etitioners’ submissions to respondent establish ” ‘that there are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to [grant a use variance]’ ” than to use an alternative site … . Matter of Freepoint Solar LLC v Town of Athens Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2024 NY Slip Op 06409, Third Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a rare rejection of an administrative finding as “arbitrary and capricious.” In light of the minimal environmental impact of a solar energy facility and the state policy supporting the transition to clean energy, the zoning board’s reasons for denying the use variance were deemed untenable.

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO INTERPRET A LOCAL ZONING LAW TO APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-judge dissent, determined the planning board did not have the power to issue a special use permit and site plan approval for a commercial park:

… [T]he jurisdiction of a zoning board of appeals is appellate in nature (see Town Law § 267-a [4]). Nevertheless, a town possesses the authority to enact a local law or ordinance vesting its zoning board of appeals with original jurisdiction (see Town Law § 267-a [4]), including, for example, to address questions of zoning code interpretation … . Here, the Code of the Town of Thompson expressly provides that the ZBA may pass on matters of interpretation as to whether a proposed use is permitted under the zoning code either “[o]n appeal from a[ ] . . . determination made by an administrative official, or on request by an official, board or agency of the Town” (Code of the Town of Thompson § 250-46 [A] …), the latter option being what was requested by petitioners. * * *

… [I]t is evident that a genuine question exists as to whether the project will fall within a permissible or prohibited use, and the Planning Board improperly resolved this issue on its own. “Planning boards are without power to interpret the local zoning law, as that power is vested exclusively in local code enforcement officials and the zoning board of appeals” … . As such, the issue should have been resolved either by the local code enforcement officer, or by the ZBA upon referral from the Planning Board (see Code of the Town of Thompson §§ 250-41 [C], 250-46 [A] … . Matter of Smith v Town of Thompson Planning Bd., 2024 NY Slip Op 06085, Third Dept 12-5-24

Practice Point: Check the Town Law and the local Town Code to determine whether a Planning Board has the power to act. Here the Planning Board did not have the power to interpret a local zoning law and determine, on its own, that the proposed development is a permissible use of the land.​

 

, ,

THE ZONING REGULATION WHICH REQUIRES PAYMENT TO AN “ARTS FUND” OF $100 PER SQUARE FOOT FOR CONVERSION OF “JOINT LIVING-WORK QUARTERS FOR ARTISTS” TO FULLY RESIDENTIAL USE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, found unconstitutional a NYC Zoning Regulation (ZR) which required artists who wish to convert their “joint living-work quarters for artists (JLWQA)” to residential use to pay $100 per square foot to an “Arts Fund.” The fund did not have a sufficient connection with the government’s land-use interest:

The ZR amendment passed by the City, in establishing the Special SoHo-NoHo Mixed Use District (SNX District), provides current JLWQA unit owners a pathway to convert uses but also requires them, if and when they seek conversion, to contribute “$100.00 per square foot of floor area to be converted” to the Arts Fund, with annual increases … . “[T]he payment of such non-refundable contribution shall be a precondition to filing for or issuing of any building permit allowing the conversion [of] a joint living-work quarters for artists to a residence” … .

The Arts Fund fee constitutes a permit condition for which the “two-part test modeled on the unconstitutional conditions doctrine” applies … . Thus, the permit condition “must have an ‘essential nexus’ to the government’s land-use interest,” which “ensures that the government is acting to further its stated purpose” … , and the condition “must have ‘rough proportionality’ to the development’s impact on the land-use interest” … .

In applying the two-part test, we find that petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the Arts Fund fee requirement constitutes a taking without just compensation (US Const Amend V; NY Const art I, § 7[a]). Matter of Coalition for Fairness in Soho & Noho, Inc. v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 06118, First Dept 12-5-24

Practice Point: Here a zoning regulation which required payment of a fee of $100 per square foot to an “Arts Fund” as a precondition for a building permit was deemed an unconstitutional taking.

 

,

PETITIONER WAS ISSUED A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH 557 PARKING SPACES; THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED BECAUSE THE TOWN CODE REQUIRED 624 PARKING SPACES; BECAUSE THE PERMIT WAS INVALID, PETITIONER COULD NOT INVOKE THE “DOCTRINE OF VESTED RIGHTS” FOR A VARIANCE ALLOWING 557 SPACES (SECOND DEPARTMENT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner was not entitled to a variance pursuant to the doctrine of vested rights. Petitioner had been issued a permit to build commercial space which included 557 parking spaces. The town subsequently revoked the permit because the town code required 624 parking spaces. Petitioner then applied for a variance arguing the permit which had been issued conveyed a vested right to the originally approved 557 parking spaces:

“The doctrine of vested rights is implicated when a property owner seeks to continue to use property, or to initiate the use of property, in a way that was permissible before enactment or amendment of a zoning ordinance but would not be permitted under a new zoning law” … . Such “a vested right can be acquired when, pursuant to a legally issued permit, the landowner demonstrates a commitment to the purpose for which the permit was granted by effecting substantial changes and incurring substantial expenses to further the development” … . However, “[v]ested rights cannot be acquired in reliance upon an invalid permit” … . “[T]he mistaken or erroneous issuance of a permit does not estop a municipality from correcting errors, even where there are harsh results” … . Here, as the ZBA [zoning board of appeals] soundly determined, the permit issued to the petitioner was invalid, since the Town Code plainly sets forth the method for calculating the nonresidential gross floor area according to which the number of required parking spaces is set and pursuant to that method, the required number of spaces exceeded the 557 spaces planned by the petitioner … . Since the permit issued to the petitioner was invalid, it could not have conferred vested rights … . Matter of C & B Realty #3, LLC v Van Loan, 2022 NY Slip Op 05036, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Here the petitioner was issued a permit for construction which was later revoked as invalid because it violated the town code. The “doctrine of vested rights” does not apply to the provisions in an invalid permit. Therefore petitioner’s application for a variance to build according to the provisions of the revoked permit was denied. The “doctrine of vested rights” is explained in the decision.

 

, , , ,

THE TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS’ FAILURE TO ISSUE A DECISION ON PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT AND AN AREA VARIANCE WITHIN THE 62 DAYS PRESCRIBED BY THE TOWN LAW WAS NOT A DENIAL BY DEFAULT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THE MATTER WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE “DEFAULT DENIAL” AND ORDERED THE TOWN TO ISSUE THE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the town Board of Appeals’ failure to issue a decision on petitioner’s application for a special exception permit and an area variance within the 62 days prescribed by the Town Law was not a denial of the application by default; (2) Supreme Court should not have treated the failure to issue a timely decision as a denial by default. which it then annulled, ordering the town to issue the permit and the variance; and (3) Supreme Court should not have denied the Board’s motion to vacate Supreme Court’s order and judgment (ordering the issuance of the permit and variance):

Pursuant to Town Law § 267-a(8), the Board must render a decision within 62 days after the close of the hearing. The Town Law also contains a default provision which provides that if the Board, in exercising its appellate jurisdiction, fails to render a decision within 62 days of the hearing, the application is deemed denied (see id. § 267-a[13][b]). …

A proceeding to annul a determination by an administrative body “should not be concluded in the petitioner’s favor merely upon the basis of a failure to answer the petition on the return date thereof, unless it appears that such failure to plead was intentional and that the administrative body has no intention to have the controversy determined on the merits” … . Here, there was no evidence demonstrating a deliberate default by the Board … .

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, its application for a special exception permit was not denied by default. The Board’s failure to comply with the time period prescribed by Town Law § 267-a(8) only results in a denial by default when the Board exercises its appellate jurisdiction (see id. § 267-a[13][b]). The Board exercises its original jurisdiction in special exception cases … , and thus, there was no denial by default of the petitioner’s application for a special exception permit … . With no final determination having been rendered on the application for a special exception permit, that issue was not ripe for judicial review, and the Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over that issue … . We note that ripeness “is a matter pertaining to subject matter jurisdiction which may be raised at any time, including sua sponte” … . Matter of 999 Hempstead Turnpike, LLC v Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, 2022 NY Slip Op 04721, Second Dept 7-29-22

Practice Point: A town Board of Appeals’ failure to issue a decision on an application for a permit and an area variance within the 62 days prescribed by the Town Law is not a denial of the petition by default. Supreme Court, therefore, did not have subject matter jurisdiction over he purported “denial by default” and the matter was not ripe for review.

 

, ,

DUE TO A CONTRACTOR’S ERROR, PETITIONER’S SWIMMING POOL WAS INSTALLED SIX FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, VIOLATING THE 14-FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT; THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PROPERLY DENIED THE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) properly took into the considerations the factors prescribed by the Town Law when it denied petitioner’s application for a setback variance. The setback requirement for a swimming was 14 feet. Due to an error made by the contractor, petitioner’s pool was installed six feet from the property line:

The record indicates that the ZBA considered the five factors set forth in Town Law § 267-b(3) and conducted the relevant balancing test to reach its determination. The ZBA found that the requested variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood because there was no evidence of any similarly located in-ground pools. The ZBA explained that approving a pool with such a small setback where there are no similar structures in the neighborhood would establish an unwarranted precedent for future development of the area, which could result in a detriment to nearby properties. The ZBA properly considered the possibility that granting the requested variance could set a negative precedent in the area … . Based on the property survey, the ZBA determined that the petitioner could have placed the pool in a conforming location. Moreover, the petitioner presented no evidence that the property could not be utilized without violating the zoning code. The ZBA determined that the requested variance was substantial because it asked for a 57% relaxation of the zoning code. Taking into account the rationale for the required setback, which was to protect the privacy and quiet enjoyment of adjacent residential properties, as well as the fact that the location of the pool was inconsistent with the nature and character of the surrounding area, and that the approval of the requested variance would establish an unwarranted precedent for future development of the area, the ZBA determined that granting the requested variance would have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Finally, the ZBA’s finding that the petitioner’s zoning violation, which was the result of the contractor’s error, was self-created is well founded … . Matter of Dutt v Bowers, 2022 NY Slip Op 04546, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Due to a contractor’s error, the petitioner’s swimming pool was installed six feet from the properly line, violating the 14-foor setback requirement. The petitioner applied for a variance. The Zoning Board of Appeal properly considered all the factors prescribed the Town Law and denied the variance. Supreme Court granted the variance. The Second Department reversed.

 

,

THE PLANNING BOARD’S GRANT OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BARN TO BE USED TO HOST SEASONAL PARTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANNULLED; THE PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTORS REQUIRED BY THE TOWN CODE AND FOUND THERE WOULD BE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON TRAFFIC OR NOISE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the planning board’s granting of a special use permit and approval of respondent’s site plan was not arbitrary and capricious and should not have been annulled:

Respondent Kenneth Bailey applied for a special use permit and site plan approval so that he could construct a barn on his property that would operate as a seasonal party venue. Following hearings, respondent Planning Board of the Town of Sand Lake (hereinafter the Board) issued resolutions adopting a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (see ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) and granting Bailey’s application with conditions. Petitioners — a neighborhood association and individual members thereof — commenced this proceeding seeking to annul the Board’s resolutions. * * *

The Board’s resolutions reflect that it considered the relevant criteria as set forth in Town of Sand Lake Zoning Code § 250-80. The Board noted the various uses permitted as of right by the zoning code and found that these uses “may be more intense and affecting” than Bailey’s proposed party venue. The Board relied on the engineering report in concluding that there would be no significant impact to traffic or noise. The record also discloses that the Board entertained comments derived from multiple public hearings. In view of the foregoing, and taking into account that “[a] municipality ‘retains some discretion to evaluate each application for a special use permit, to determine whether applicable criteria have been met and to make commonsense judgments in deciding whether a particular application should be granted'” … . Matter of Barnes Rd. Area Neighborhood Assn. v Planning Bd. of the Town of Sand Lake, 2022 NY Slip Op 04205, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here the respondent requested a special use permit and a site plan approval for the construction of a barn to host seasonal parties. The planning board issued the special permit and the approval. Supreme Court annulled the planning board’s determination. The Third Department reversed, finding that the planning board had properly considered the environmental impact and the factors listed in the town code. Therefore the board’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE PLANS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A HOSPITAL WERE NOT YET FINALIZED, IT WAS CLEAR THAT SUCH AN EXPANSION WAS AN ANTICIPATED RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE; THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) PROHIBITION OF “SEGMENTATION” REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPANSION AS PART OF THE “HARD LOOK” AT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ZONING CHANGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the respondents (city) did not take the requisite “hard look,” required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), at the environmental consequences before approving a zoning change that would allow an expansion of a hospital. Although there were no finalized plans to expand the hospital, it was clear that the zoning change was a first step in an expected expansion. Failure consider the expansion constituted a prohibited form of “segmentation:”

As to the segmentation claim, although the City Council was not presented with any impending, specific development proposals, rezoning parcel 1 was the “first step” in the process of eventually developing parcel 1 … . In essence, before Saratoga Hospital could move forward with any development and expansion, it needed to acquire the “right” to do so … . The zoning map amendment for parcel 1 provided just that; it would be the green light to reignite development plans. … [T]he potential development of the parcel here was not so attenuated from the zoning map amendment that reviewing an expansion of the hospital constituted permissible segmentation … . Thus, the City Council was “obligated to consider the impacts to be expected from such future development at the time of rezoning, even absent a specific site plan for the project proposal” … . Matter of Evans v City of Saratoga Springs, 2022 NY Slip Op 01079, Third Dept 2-17-22​

 

, ,

THE PETITIONERS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE OPERATION OF A CONCRETE PLANT WOULD CAUSE INJURIES TO THEM DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SUFFERED BY THE PUBLIC AT LARGE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE RENOVATION AND OPERATION OF THE PLANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioners had standing to contest the renovation and operation of a concrete plant:

Supreme Court improperly determined that the Hill & Dale petitioners and the Veteri petitioners lacked standing to challenge the ZBA’s determination. The Hill & Dale petitioners alleged environmental injuries to a private lake owned by Hill & Dale, which was situated directly across from the subject property, as well as interference with recreational activities enjoyed in and around the lake, and impacts to their properties from increased noise, truck traffic, dust, and pollutants from the concrete manufacturing use. These alleged injuries were different from those suffered by the public at large … , and fell within the zone of interests protected by the Town’s zoning laws … . Similarly, the Veteri petitioners sufficiently alleged that they would be adversely affected by the ZBA’s determination and that their alleged injuries fell within the zone of interests protected by the zoning laws. Matter of Veteri v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Kent, 2022 NY Slip Op 01030, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy