You are here: / Zoning
, , ,

ROOF OF A PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL WHO RESIDED ON THE ZONING LOT, THEREFORE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION WOULD NOT BE MET BY THE ROOF SPACE, PERMIT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the NYC “open space” zoning resolution (ZR) requirements can not be satisfied on a building by building basis. The permit allowing the construction of a nursing home facility on a parking  lot, therefore, should not have been issued. The open space on the roof of the proposed building would not be accessible to all who resided on the zoning lot. Such access is part of the definition of “open space:

The language in ZR § 12-10 is “clear and unambiguous” … . ZR § 12-10 has always defined “open space” as being “accessible to and usable by all persons occupying a #dwelling unit# or a #rooming unit# on the #zoning lot#” … . That language unambiguously requires open space to be accessible to all residents of any residential building on the zoning lot, not only the building containing the open space in question. To further bolster our finding that this language is clear and unambiguous, the 2011 amendments to ZR §§ 23-14 and 23-142 eliminated all references to “building” and replaced it with “zoning lot.” Equally dispositive is the identical change in the definition of “open space ratio” in ZR § 12-10. Of course, the impracticality of allowing the residents of one building on a zoning lot to have access to, and use of, open space located on the rooftop of another building on the zoning lot is obvious. Yet, respondents’ apparent contention concerning ZR § 12-10’s open space requirement — that any rooftop that may be considered open space for the purposes of the open space requirement shall or must be considered open space irrespective of access — gives credence to the impracticality. That is not what ZR § 12-10 says.

ZR § 12-10 unambiguously provides that “[o]pen space may be provided on the roof of . . . [a] building containing residences” and that “[a]ll such roof areas used for open space shall meet the requirements set forth in this definition.” Thus, any rooftop space that is to be considered open space for the purposes of satisfying the open space requirement under the Zoning Resolution must be accessible and usable by all residents on a zoning lot. Lest there be any doubt, we find that the 2011 amendments now preclude the use of the building-by-building methodology, which had been an exception to this clear statutory import. Matter of Peyton v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 2018 NY Slip Op 06870, First Dept 10-16-18

ZONING (ROOF OF A PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL WHO RESIDED ON THE ZONING LOT, THEREFORE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION WOULD NOT BE MET BY THE ROOF SPACE, PERMIT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC OPEN SPACE, ROOF OF A PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL WHO RESIDED ON THE ZONING LOT, THEREFORE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION WOULD NOT BE MET BY THE ROOF SPACE, PERMIT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (FIRST DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYC OPEN SPACE, ROOF OF A PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL WHO RESIDED ON THE ZONING LOT, THEREFORE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION WOULD NOT BE MET BY THE ROOF SPACE, PERMIT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN SPACE (NYC ZONING, ROOF OF A PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL WHO RESIDED ON THE ZONING LOT, THEREFORE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION WOULD NOT BE MET BY THE ROOF SPACE, PERMIT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE BRINGING A COURT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was required to exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing the town building department's ruling to the zoning board of appeals before bringing a court action. Petitioner's request for a permit to put in a convenience store in a rural use district had been denied by the building department:

… [T]he petitioner was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before commencing the instant proceeding/action. The petitioner's constitutional challenges to the Building Department's determination did not excuse the petitioner's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies through an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals… . Furthermore, the petitioner did not establish that the Building Department's determination was “wholly beyond its grant of power” or that the pursuit of administrative remedies would cause the petitioner irreparable injury … . Matter of Vineland Commons, LLC v Building Dept. of Town of Riverhead, 2018 NY Slip Op 06748, Second Dept 10-10-18

ZONING (PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE BRINGING A COURT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ZONING, PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE BRINGING A COURT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ZONING, CIVIL PROCEDURE (ZONING, PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE BRINGING A COURT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER’S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, determined that the town's attempt to recover consulting fees and set up an escrow account in connection the petitioner's requests for a special use permit and a variance to construct an antenna for a ham radio exceeded the town's authority and was preempted by a federal regulation:

The petitioner is an amateur radio hobbyist who applied for a special use permit and an area variance that would allow him to construct a radio antenna structure on his property in the Town of LaGrange. The Town incurred more than $17,000 in legal consulting fees in connection with the applications, and informed the petitioner that he was required to reimburse the Town for these fees before any determination would be made with respect to the applications. The Town subsequently, as “an accommodation to the petitioner,” reduced the amount that it was demanding for previously incurred fees to the sum of $5,874, but also required the petitioner to maintain a minimum advance continuing escrow balance of at least $1,000 to cover the Town's future consulting costs in connection with the applications. We hold that, because the Town did not limit the consulting fees charged to the petitioner to those necessary to the decision-making function of the Town's Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, the Town exceeded its State-granted authority by requiring payment of the consulting fees and, moreover, violated a rule promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission. Matter of Landstein v Town of LaGrange, 2018 NY Slip Op 06741, Second Dept 10-10-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING  (TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (PREEMPTION, MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL USE PERMIT (TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/VARIANCE (TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/ANTENNA (TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/RADIO (HAM RADIO ANTENNA, TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER'S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN IN-LAW APARTMENT, COURT’S LIMITED REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the petition for a variance to allow construction of an in-law apartment should not have been granted:

To obtain a use variance, an applicant must demonstrate to the zoning board of appeals that “applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship” (Village Law § 7-712-b[2][b]). This imposes a “heavy burden” on the applicant …, who is required to establish: “[F]or each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular district where the property is located, (1) the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence; (2) that the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; (3) that the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and (4) that the alleged hardship has not been self-created” (Village Law § 7-712-b[2][b]).

“Under a zoning ordinance which authorizes interpretation of its requirements by a board of appeals, such as Village of Patchogue Code § 93-47(B), specific application of a term of the ordinance to a particular property is governed by that body’s interpretation, unless unreasonable or irrational . . . [J]udicial review is generally limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion” …

The petitioner failed to make the requisite showing of “unnecessary hardship” for a use variance … . Additionally, there is no evidence that the ZBA [zoning board of appeals] failed to adhere to any prior precedent of granting use variance applications in similar situations … . Matter of Gray v Village of Patchogue, 2018 NY Slip Op 05677, Second Dept 8-8-18

ZONING (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN IN-LAW APARTMENT, COURT’S LIMITED REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/VARIANCES (ZONING, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN IN-LAW APARTMENT, COURT’S LIMITED REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

,

BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT WAS NEVER FILED THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER RAN, BECAUSE A NOTICED HEARING WAS NEVER HELD THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff property owners who sought to contest the approval of the construction of condominiums near their properties. Because the approval of the project was never filed within the meaning of the Village Code, the 30-day period for appeal never began to run and plaintiffs’ action should not have been dismissed as untimely. In addition, because no duly noticed public hearing (as required by the Village Code) was held, the site plan approval was jurisdictionally defective:

… the ZBA [zoning board of appeals] determined that the 30-day period set forth in Village Code § 300-23(A)(2) began to run in November 2012, when the Building Inspector forwarded [the] application to the Planning Board, an act that was not disclosed to the public. It is undisputed that any determination of the Building Inspector in November 2012 that [the] proposed use was zoning-compliant was not “filed” anywhere at that time. Thus, we agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the ZBA’s determination in this respect was contrary to the plain language of Village Code § 300-23(A)(2). Since this is a purely legal conclusion based on arguments raised in the motions to dismiss, and based on undisputed facts, contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the conversion of their motions into motions for summary judgment was proper, and we agree with the court’s determination granting summary judgment to the petitioners on this issue prior to the filing of an answer … . …

We also agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting summary judgment to the petitioners on the second cause of action to the extent of declaring that the determination of the BOT dated December 18, 2013, granting site plan approval, was jurisdictionally defective and thus void in that no duly noticed public hearing was held thereon in accordance with Village Code § 300-28(G). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, Village Code § 300-28(G)(1) plainly requires that public hearings be held on site plan applications. That section further provides that the applicant shall be required to send notices of the hearing to owners of properties within 200 feet of the subject property by certified mailing. Since no notice of a public hearing was given, the BOT acted without jurisdiction in granting site plan approval … . Matter of Corrales v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Vil. of Dobbs Ferry, 2018 NY Slip Op 05676, Second Dept 8-8-18

ZONING (BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT WAS NEVER FILED THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER RAN, BECAUSE A NOTICED HEARING WAS NEVER HELD THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT))

,

TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) did not violate any provisions of the town code or the State Environmental Quality Review Act when it issued a special use permit and variances allowing the construction of a cell tower (wireless telecommunications facility or WTF):

“Where, as here, the zoning ordinance authorizes a use permit subject to administrative approval, the applicant need only show that the use is contemplated by the ordinance and that it complies with the conditions imposed to minimize anticipated impact on the surrounding area . . . The [zoning authority] is required to grant a special use permit unless it has reasonable grounds for denying the application”  … . …

Although the Planning Department initially concluded that aspects of the application would not be consistent with the Town’s comprehensive plan, it recommended approval of the application upon certain conditions, which included employing stealth design to disguise the tower as an evergreen tree and reconfiguring the site plan to move the tower as far away as possible from adjacent residences. After holding a public hearing and formally considering the application, the ZBA approved the application subject to the recommended conditions and issued a written decision to that effect … . Thus, we conclude that there is no merit to petitioners’ contention that the special use permit ultimately granted by the ZBA was inconsistent with the Town’s comprehensive plan. …

… [W]e conclude that the requirements for area variances set forth in Town Law § 267-b (3) are inapplicable here inasmuch as the ZBA issued waivers pursuant to Town Law § 274-b (5). The record also establishes that Verizon demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the waivers would have “no significant effect on the health, safety and welfare of the Town, its residents and other service providers” (ch 203, § 6-7-21). Matter of Edwards v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Amherst, 2018 NY Slip Op 05430, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

ZONING (TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT))/SPECIAL USE PERMIT (TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT))/VARIANCES  (TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT))/CELL TOWERS (TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) did not follow town code procedure when it refused to consider the review and comments submitted by the planning board in connection with area variances of lot-width requirements for a proposed subdivision. The court also noted that a declaratory judgment is not an available remedy for challenging an administrative determination:

The Town’s Zoning Code (Code) provides that “[t]he [ZBA] shall refer applications for variance requests to the Planning Board for review and comments. The Planning Board shall forward comments within 30 days of the close of a public hearing of the [ZBA]” … . Here, the Planning Board conducted a meeting on June 20, 2016, and voted to approve the relevant variances. On June 27, 2016, the ZBA held a public hearing and postponed its decision on the variance application until certain residents could comment at an upcoming July 18, 2016 Planning Board meeting. At the July 18, 2016 Planning Board meeting, various residents opposed the variances, and the Planning Board reversed its initial June 20, 2016 determination and voted not to approve the area variances. Thereafter, the ZBA determined that the Planning Board did not have the authority to reverse its prior determination and that the July 18, 2016 vote was null and void. The ZBA met on August 22, 2016 and voted to approve the area variances without considering the Planning Board’s July 18, 2016 review and comments.

” It is well established that [c]ourts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure’ ” … . Here, inasmuch as no ZBA public hearing took place until June 27, 2016, the June 20, 2016 action on the variance application by the Planning Board was procedurally improper … . The ZBA’s refusal to consider the procedurally compliant July 18, 2016 review and comments submitted by the Planning Board therefore violated the procedure set forth in section 302 (G) of the Code. We thus conclude that the ZBA’s grant of the area variances was “made in violation of lawful procedure [and] was affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803 [3]). Matter of Schulz v Town of Hopewell Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2018 NY Slip Op 05418, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

ZONING (THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ZONING, THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ZONING, THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/VARIANCES (ZONING, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application for a variance should have been granted on financial hardship grounds, but the action alleging a regulatory taking was not ripe, an issue which can be raised on appeal for the first time. Petitioner demonstrated the character of the surrounding area had changed from residential to commercial over the past 30 years rendering the property unmarketable as residential property:

The ZBA [zoning board of appeals] actually agreed that “the location of this property on a corner may impact its value,” and its ultimate conclusion that the financial hardship was not unique seemingly ran counter to that observation … . Moreover, in light of the proof that the need for a use variance only arose decades after the property was acquired due to a gradual shift in the character of the area that rendered the permitted residential use onerous and obsolete, petitioners sufficiently alleged “that the hardship identified by [them] . . . was [not] self-created” … . Accepting the foregoing as true, as we must, petitioners stated a viable claim attacking the ZBA’s determination.

… [T]he remaining regulatory taking claim must be dismissed. The petition/complaint states, and petitioners’ arguments on appeal reflect, that the owner’s taking claim is solely premised upon a deprivation of rights afforded under the Federal Constitution (see US Const 5th Amend; 42 USC § 1983). In order for a 42 USC § 1983 claim based upon a regulatory taking to be ripe, however, it is necessary for a petitioner/plaintiff to “demonstrate that [he or] she has both received a ‘final decision regarding the application of the [challenged] regulations to the property at issue’ from ‘the government entity charged with implementing the regulations,’ and sought ‘compensation through the procedures the [s]tate has provided for doing so'”… . The denial of the application for a use variance constituted a final decision regarding the application of the zoning regulations to its property… , but there is no indication that the owner then asserted a state claim for inverse condemnation… . Thus, inasmuch as ripeness is a “matter[] pertaining to subject matter jurisdiction which can be raised at any time” and the second cause of action founded upon 42 USC § 1983 is “unripe because [the owner] failed to seek compensation from the [s]tate before” asserting it… , it must be dismissed. Matter of 54 Marion Ave., LLC v City of Saratoga Springs, 2018 NY Slip Op 04611, Third Dept 6-21-18

​ZONING (PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/VARIANCE (ZONING, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RIPENESS, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/RIPENESS (REGULATORY TAKING, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/REGULATORY TAKING (RIPENESS, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (RIPENESS, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS NOT PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the transfer of development rights (TDR) component of its comprehensive plan was not properly adopted under the General Municipal Law:

The instant hybrid proceeding/action challenges the Town Board’s adoption of Local Law No. 12 (2005), which amended the Town’s zoning code to implement the transfer of development rights component of the Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter the TDR law). The TDR law designated the property subject to the petitioner’s site plan application as a sending district, meaning that it was an area of land from which development rights were to be transferred to receiving districts … . …

“General Municipal Law § 239-m provides that a proposed amendment of a zoning ordinance by a town must be referred to the county planning agency if the amendment affects real property located within 500 feet of the boundary of any city, village, or town”… . That statute requires a town to refer a “full statement”…  of its proposed action, which is defined as including “the complete text of the proposed ordinance or local law,” to the relevant county planning agency … .

Here, the Town Board adopted a resolution on January 19, 2005, in which it directed the Town Clerk to publish a copy of the final draft of the TDR law and notice of a hearing to be held 10 days later regarding the proposal. Around that time, the Town Board attempted to refer the proposed TDR law to the Suffolk County Planning Commission (hereinafter the Planning Commission) in accordance with General Municipal Law § 239-m. The Planning Commission, however, responded by letter dated February 9, 2005, in which it explained that the proposed TDR law would “not be reviewed until the following information is submitted through the offices of the municipal referring agency. Complete revised text of proposed TDR amendment.” There is no evidence in the record contradicting the Planning Commission’s statement that it never received the text of the proposed TDR law. Consequently, the Town Board failed to refer a “full statement” of its proposed TDR law before enacting it as required under the statute … . Matter of Calverton Manor, LLC v Town of Riverhead, 2018 NY Slip Op 02611, Second Dept 4-18-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS NOT PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS NOT PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING  (TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS NOT PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS NOT PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT))/TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS LAW (TDR) (ZONING, TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS NOT PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

RURAL CORRIDOR (RLC) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW, AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED, ENTITLING PETITIONER TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the town properly implemented the Rural Corridor (RLC) component of its comprehensive plan under the General Municipal Law, Town Law, State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the implementation was a proper exercise of the town’s zoning and police powers. The court further determined there were questions of fact whether petitioner’s development project application was completed before the new comprehensive plan was adopted, entitling petitioner to consideration of the plan under the law at the time the application was completed:

Here, the stated purpose of the RLC law was “to allow a very limited range of roadside shops and services that are compatible with the agricultural and rural setting along major arterial roads, such as New York State Route 25, leading into Downtown Riverhead and areas zoned Hamlet Center (HC) or Village Center (VC).” Contrary to the petitioner’s arguments, the RLC law’s designation of property along New York State Route 25 a few miles west of the hamlet of Riverhead as a rural corridor zone bore a rational relationship to its stated objective.

Although the general rule is that a court should apply the zoning provisions in effect at the time it renders its decision … , pursuant to the “special facts” exception, a court may apply the law in effect at the time the landowner’s application was made. The special facts exception may be applied where the landowner “establishes entitlement as a matter of right to the underlying land use application,” and “extensive delay[ ] indicative of bad faith . . . unjustifiable actions by the municipal officials . . . or abuse of administrative procedures”… .

The record contains inconsistencies as to whether the petitioner’s application was a “completed application” when it submitted the last revised version of its site plan application in September 2003. There is evidence in the record that the petitioner needed to make additional revisions before the application could be treated as a “completed application” under the Town’s rules, meaning that the petitioner was not entitled as a matter of right to the underlying land use application… . However, there is evidence in the record that the Town Board had determined the application to be a “completed application” when it was submitted in September 2003, meaning the Town Board may have delayed processing the petitioner’s application in a manner indicative of bad faith … . Matter of Calverton Manor, LLC v Town of Riverhead, 2018 NY Slip Op 02610, Second Dept 4-18-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (RURAL CORRIDOR (RLC) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW, AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED, ENTITLING PETITIONER TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR LAW (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (RURAL CORRIDOR (RLC) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW, AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED, ENTITLING PETITIONER TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR LAW (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING (RURAL CORRIDOR (RLC) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW, AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED, ENTITLING PETITIONER TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR LAW (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (RURAL CORRIDOR (RLC) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW, AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED, ENTITLING PETITIONER TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR LAW (SECOND DEPT))/RURAL CORRIDOR LAW (RLC)  (RURAL CORRIDOR (RLC) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW, AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED, ENTITLING PETITIONER TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR LAW (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL FACTS EXCEPTION SPECIAL FACTS EXCEPTION (ZONING, LAND USE, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED, ENTITLING PETITIONER TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR LAW (SECOND DEPT))

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy