You are here: / Land Use
,

PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CLOSE PROXIMITY IS NOT ENOUGH.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found the petitioners did not have standing to challenge the approval of construction project by the zoning board. Although petitioners' property is in close proximity to the proposed project, the petitioners did not demonstrate any harm peculiar to them, as opposed to the community at large:

An allegation of close proximity may give rise to an inference of damage or injury that enables a nearby property owner to challenge a land use decision without proof of actual injury. However, this does not entitle the property owner to judicial review in every instance … . Rather, in addition to establishing that the effect of the proposed change is different from that suffered by the public generally, the petitioner must establish that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interests the statute protects … . Thus, “even where petitioner's premises are physically close to the subject property, an ad hoc determination may be required as to whether a particular petitioner itself has a legally protectable interest so as to confer standing” … . * * *

The Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioners failed to establish standing on the basis of alleged traffic impacts, impacts arising from issues of compliance, or community character impacts, as the petitioners failed to establish any harm distinct from that of the community at large … . Matter of CPD NY Energy Corp. v Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 03877, 2nd Dept 5-18-16

ZONING (PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CLOSE PROXIMITY IS NOT ENOUGH)/LAND-USE (PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CLOSE PROXIMITY IS NOT ENOUGH)/STANDING (ZONING, PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CLOSE PROXIMITY IS NOT ENOUGH)/LAND-USE (PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CLOSE PROXIMITY IS NOT ENOUGH)

, ,

STATE WATER RESOURCES LAW DID NOT PREEMPT ZONING BOARD’S REQUIRING TOWN APPROVAL BEFORE WATER CAN BE EXTRACTED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.

The Fourth Department determined the state Water Resources Law, which governs the extraction of groundwater, did not preempt the town zoning board's special-permit condition requiring town approval before water can be extracted for commercial purposes. Petitioner sought to build a pipeline to carry water from under petitioner's land to another town where the water would be sold. Petitioner argued the Water Resources Law preempted the town from requiring approval for commercial use of the extracted water. The Fourth Department held that the town's power to regulate the use of land, here requiring permission before water can be extracted for commercial purposes, was not limited by the Water Resources Law:

… [T]he Water Resources Law (ECL article 15, et seq.) does not preempt local zoning laws concerning land use. Instead, the Water Resources Law preempts only those local laws that attempt “to regulate withdrawals of groundwater,” which “includes all surface and underground water within the state's territorial limits” … . The Water Resources Law does not preempt the authority of local governments to “regulate the use of land through the enactment of zoning laws” … . * * * … [T]he statute regulates how a natural resource may be extracted but does not regulate where in the Town such extraction may occur. Matter of Smoke v Planning Bd. of Town of Greig, 2016 NY Slip Op 03322, 4th Dept 4-29-16


,

EXTENSIONS OF NONCONFORMING USE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.

The Second Department determined the extension of a nonconforming use by the construction of decks, a gazebo, awning and detached shed should not have been permitted by the board of zoning appeals (BZA):

… [T]he Surf Club's erection of the decks, the awning, the gazebo, and the detached shed on its premises, and the completion of certain alterations to its clubhouse, constituted an impermissible extension of that nonconforming use, not a mere increase in volume or intensity of the same nonconforming use … . As such, the BZA's determination to grant the Surf Club's application for an extension of nonconforming use violated Code of Town of Brookhaven § 85-883(A)(2), which prohibits the extension of nonconforming uses. Accordingly, the portion of the BZA's determination which granted the Surf Club's application for an extension of nonconforming use was arbitrary and capricious and should have been annulled by the Supreme Court. Matter of Martinos v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, 2016 NY Slip Op 02828, 2nd Dept 4-13-16


, ,

TOWN’S ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER SUBMIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERY WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the town board's issuing a positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and imposing a DEIS (draft environmental impact statement) requirement on a landowner seeking a nonconforming use did not raise a justiciable controversy.   Although the creation of a DEIS imposes a financial cost on the landowner, it is only the initial step in the SEQRA review process and is not, therefore, ripe for review. The landowner relied on Matter of Gordon v Rush, 100 NY2d 236, to argue review was appropriate. The court explained why Gordon did not apply:

This Court [in Gordon] concluded that the Board's administrative action was ripe for judicial review because the Board's SEQRA declaration imposed an obligation on the petitioners to prepare and submit a DEIS, after they “had already been through the coordinated review process and a negative declaration had been issued by the DEC as lead agency,” and where no apparent further proceedings would remedy the injury caused by the unnecessary and unauthorized expenditures associated with conducting a DEIS … . Thus, Gordon's analysis and its import must be considered in light of the Court's recognition that the administrative action in that case was potentially unauthorized because “the Board may not have had jurisdiction to conduct its own SEQRA review,” given the existence of a prior negative declaration by a facially appropriate lead agency … . Matter of Ranco Sand & Stone Corp. v Vecchio, 2016 NY Slip Op 02477, CtApp 3-31-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (TOWN'S ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER SUBMIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT)/LAND USE (TOWN'S ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER SUBMIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, TOWN'S ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER SUBMIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (TOWN'S ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER SUBMIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT)/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (TOWN'S ISSUANCE OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER SUBMIT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT)

, ,

PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT BASED UPON AN INVALID PERMIT DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A VESTED RIGHT IN THE DEVELOPED PROPERTY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined petitioner did not acquire a vested right to an advertising sign erected pursuant to an invalid permit which was later revoked by the city (NYC). The court further determined the proper procedure for seeking approval for the sign is an application for a variance. Whether petitioner relied in good faith on the invalid permit could be considered in the variance proceeding:

“[A]n owner of real property can acquire a common law vested right to develop property in accordance with prior zoning regulations when, in reliance on a 'legally issued permit,' the landowner 'effect[s] substantial changes and incur[s] substantial expenses to further the development' and '[t]he landowner's actions relying on [the] valid permit [are] so substantial that the municipal action results in serious loss rendering the improvements essentially valueless'” … .

Vested rights cannot be acquired, however, where there is reliance on an invalid permit … . When a permit is wrongfully issued in the first instance, the vested rights doctrine does not prevent the municipality from revoking the permit to correct its error. Because the 2008 permit was unlawfully issued, petitioner could not rely on it to acquire vested rights. Matter of Perlbinder Holdings, LLC v Srinivasan, 2016 NY Slip Op 02122, CtApp 3-24-16

ZONING (PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT BASED UPON AN INVALID PERMIT DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A VESTED RIGHT IN THE DEVELOPED PROPERTY)

,

NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly annulled a use variance granted to allow the construction of a car wash. The court explained the analytical criteria:

“To qualify for a use variance premised upon unnecessary hardship there must be a showing that (1) the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for permitted purposes as currently zoned, (2) the hardship resulted from unique characteristics of the property, (3) the proposed use would not alter the character of the neighborhood, and (4) the alleged hardship was not self-created” … .

With regard to the first element, “[i]t is well settled that a landowner who seeks a use variance must demonstrate factually, by dollars and cents proof, an inability to realize a reasonable return under existing permissible uses'” … . * * * The … parties did not … submit any actual financial information, such as the original purchase price of the property, the expenses and carrying costs of the property, the present value of the property, the taxes, the amount of any mortgages or other encumbrances, the amount of income presently realized, if any, or an estimate as to what a reasonable return on the entire property or any portion should be … .

Entitlement to a use variance is not established merely by proof that the proposed use would be more profitable than a smaller scaled project not requiring a use variance .. . The … parties are entitled to a reasonable return, not the most profitable return … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly found that the ZBA’s determination that the Splash parties established unnecessary hardship was arbitrary and capricious since it does not have a rational basis in the record … . Matter of DeFeo v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Bedford, 2016 NY Slip Op 02082, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

ZONING (USE VARIANCE, NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN)/LAND USE (USE VARIANCE, NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN)/USE VARIANCE (NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN)

 

,

EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DID NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PRECLUDING VILLAGE OFFICIALS FROM PARTICIPATING IN A SEQRA REVIEW; PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO RESCIND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AFTER PERMITS WERE ISSUED.

The Fourth Department determined two village officials did not have a conflict of interest which would preclude their participation in a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review of a development project. The two had expressed opposition to the project before and after their elections, but expression of opinion does not create a conflict of interest. The Fourth Department upheld the annulment of resolutions which stated the proposed project would adversely affect the environment. The planning board had previously found no adverse impact (a negative declaration) and had issued permits. The board did not have the authority to rescind the negative declaration at that point:

… [T]he Board lacked authority to rescind its negative declaration under the circumstances of this case. Here, the Board was authorized to rescind its negative declaration “prior to its decision to undertake, fund, or approve an action,” and the Board made its decision to approve the action, i.e., the Project, when it issued the requisite special permits … . Matter of Pittsford Canalside Props., LLC v Village of Pittsford, 2016 NY Slip Op 01929, 4th Dept 3-18-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DID NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PRECLUDING VILLAGE OFFICIALS FROM PARTICIPATING IN SEQRA REVIEW)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO RESCIND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AFTER PERMITS ISSUED)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DID NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PRECLUDING VILLAGE OFFICIALS FROM PARTICIPATING IN SEQRA REVIEW)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO RESCIND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AFTER PERMITS ISSUED)

,

PETITIONER ORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALT PLANT NEAR A STATE PARK.

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined the petitioner did not have standing to challenge the construction of a temporary asphalt plant near a state forest. The conclusory allegations of pollution of the park by a member of petitioner-organization were not enough:

 

” [I]n land use matters . . . the plaintiff, for standing purposes, must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large'” … . Whether an organization or association has standing involves the application of the three-pronged test set forth in Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk (77 NY2d at 775). As pertinent to this appeal, the first prong of that test requires that the organization or association demonstrate that “one or more of its members would have standing to sue” as an individual (id.). An individual has standing where he or she “would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large” (id. at 774) and “the in-fact injury of which [he or she] complains . . . falls within the zone of interests,’ or concerns, sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” (id. at 773, …). Here, the petitioner submitted an affidavit from one of its members asserting that he frequently used the area of Stewart State Forest that was closest to the temporary asphalt plant. However, his allegations that the operation of the plant polluted the natural resources of the forest were conclusory and speculative, and therefore, insufficient to establish standing… . Matter of Stewart Park & Reserve Coalition, Inc. v Town of New Windsor Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2016 NY Slip Op 01685, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PETITIONER ORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALT PLANT)/LAND USE (PETITIONER ORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALT PLANT)/STANDING (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LAND USE, PETITIONER ORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALT PLANT)

,

DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN A CONDITIONAL FINAL SITE APPROVAL IN LIGHT OF A CONFLICTING REZONING LAW IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL.

The Court of Appeals determined petitioners did not have a vested right in a conditional final site approval because it was not reasonable for petitioners rely on the approval in light of the conflicting local law rezoning the property:

An owner of real property can acquire a common law vested right to develop the property in accordance with prior zoning regulations when, in reliance on a “legally issued permit,” the landowner “effect[s] substantial changes and incur[s] substantial expenses to further the development” and “[t]he landowner’s actions relying on [the] valid permit [are] so substantial that the municipal action results in serious loss rendering the improvements essentially valueless” (see generally 4 Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 70:20 [4th ed]). Here, it was not reasonable for petitioners to rely on the December 2007 conditional Final Site Approval of the development, in carrying out any substantial actions furthering the development. In particular, in 2005, the year before the rezoning of petitioners’ property by means of Local Law No. 3 (2006) of Town of Newburgh, the Town Planning Board had repeatedly warned petitioners of the proposed rezoning. The December 2007 Approval itself did not engender expectations to the contrary. It included a statement of the new zoning status of the property. Additionally, while petitioners challenged the rezoning in court, petitioners must have been “cognizant of the potential for an eventual legal ruling that the Local Law was in fact valid” … . Matter of Exeter Bldg. Corp. v Town of Newburgh, 2016 NY Slip Op 00999, CtApp 2-11-16

ZONING (DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN A CONDITIONAL FINAL SITE APPROVAL)

, ,

EXCEPTION TO FINALITY RULE WHERE IT IS CLEAR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE FUTILE; DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN A SITE PLAN APPROVAL WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A VIOLATION-OF-DUE-PROCESS CAUSE OF ACTION.

In finding the town planning board’s motion for summary judgment on several causes of action brought by respondent developer should have been granted, the Second Department explained (1) the finality rule need not be mechanically applied where it is clear further administrative proceedings would be futile, and (2) the developer did not have a property interest in a site plan approval which would support a violation-of-due-process cause of action:

 

“To determine whether a matter is ripe for judicial review, it is necessary first to determine whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution, and second to assess the hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied'” … . “The concept of finality requires an examination of the completeness of the administrative action and a pragmatic evaluation of whether the decision-maker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury'” … .

In the area of land use, “[a] final decision exists when a development plan has been submitted, considered and rejected by the governmental entity with the power to implement zoning regulations” … . In this regard, “[a] property owner, for example, will be excused from obtaining a final decision if pursuing an appeal to a zoning board of appeals or seeking a variance would be futile. That is, a property owner need not pursue such applications when a zoning agency lacks discretion to grant variances or has dug in its heels and made clear that all such applications will be denied” … . Additionally, an exception to the finality requirement exists where the municipal entity uses “repetitive and unfair procedures in order to avoid a final decision” … . …

[Respondent developer] alleged that it had a cognizable property interest in the approval of the application that was injured in violation of its right to due process under both the United States and New York State Constitutions. However, as the Planning Board has significant discretion in reviewing site plan applications … , East End does not have a cognizable property interest in the approval of a particular site plan application …. .  East End Resources, LLC v Town of Southold Planning Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 00476, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (FINALITY RULE NOT APPLIED WHERE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS FUTILE)/ZONING (DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE PROPERTY INTEREST IN SITE PLAN APPROVAL)/DUE PROCESS (DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE PROPERTY INTEREST IN SITE PLAN APPROVAL)/SITE PLAN (DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE PROPERTY INTEREST IN SITE PLAN APPROVAL)

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