Zoning – Page 11 – New York Appellate Digest

Environmental Law, Land Use, Municipal Law, Zoning

AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION ZONE (APZ) 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 Agricultural Protection Zone (APZ) 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:

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 02609, Second Dept 4-18-18

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION ZONE (APZ) 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 (AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION ZONE (APZ) 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 (AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION ZONE (APZ) 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 (AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION ZONE (APZ) 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))/AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION ZONE (APZ) (AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION ZONE (APZ) 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 (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))

April 18, 2018

Environmental Law, Land Use, Municipal Law, Zoning

TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED WHILE PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS PENDING AND NEGATIVELY AFFECTED IT, WAS PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), AND WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE TOWN’S POLICE AND ZONING POWERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the town’s comprehensive plan, which was adopted while petitioner’s development project application was pending and negatively affected the project, was properly adopted under the General Municipal Law and Town Law, did not violate the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and was a constitutional exercise of the police and zoning powers:

Prior to adopting a comprehensive plan, a town board must “refer the proposed comprehensive plan or any amendment thereto to the county planning board or agency or regional planning council for review and recommendation as required by” General Municipal Law § 239-m (Town Law § 272-a[5][b]). General Municipal Law § 239-m, in turn, requires a town to “submit to the county planning agency a full statement of such proposed action'” … . …

We agree with the Supreme Court that the Town Board complied with the procedural and substantive requirements of SEQRA. First, ” SEQRA mandates literal compliance with its procedural requirements and substantial compliance is insufficient to discharge the responsibility of the agency under the act'” … . …

Second, ” [j]udicial review of an agency determination under SEQRA is limited to whether the agency procedures were lawful and whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination'” … .. “The agency decision should be annulled only if it is arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by the evidence” … . …

Here, the Comprehensive Plan’s proposed designation of a largely contiguous swath of cultivated and undeveloped land as an agricultural protected zone bore a rational relationship to numerous legitimate purposes, including, but not limited to, the preservation and promotion of agriculture … . Matter of Calverton Manor, LLC v Town of Riverhead, 2018 NY Slip Op 02608, Second Dept 4-18-18

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED WHILE PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS PENDING AND NEGATIVELY AFFECTED IT, WAS PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), AND WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE TOWN’S POLICE AND ZONING POWERS (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED WHILE PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS PENDING AND NEGATIVELY AFFECTED IT, WAS PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), AND WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE TOWN’S POLICE AND ZONING POWERS (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING (TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED WHILE PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS PENDING AND NEGATIVELY AFFECTED IT, WAS PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), AND WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE TOWN’S POLICE AND ZONING POWERS (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED WHILE PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS PENDING AND NEGATIVELY AFFECTED IT, WAS PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), AND WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE TOWN’S POLICE AND ZONING POWERS (SECOND DEPT))/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED WHILE PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS PENDING AND NEGATIVELY AFFECTED IT, WAS PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), AND WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE TOWN’S POLICE AND ZONING POWERS (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED WHILE PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS PENDING AND NEGATIVELY AFFECTED IT, WAS PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), AND WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE TOWN’S POLICE AND ZONING POWERS (SECOND DEPT))

April 18, 2018

Environmental Law, Land Use, Municipal Law, Zoning

TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town’s Site Plan Review Law was a valid substitute for zoning ordinances and explained the difference. The court also explained the meaning of a “comprehensive plan” in this context. In the underlying action the petitioners contested certain conditions placed upon the storage and sale of firewood imposed by the town planning board and argued that the planning board did not have the authority, under the Site Plan Review Law, to impose the conditions:

The primary goal of a zoning ordinance must be to provide for the development of a balanced, cohesive community which will make efficient use of the town’s available land” … . In contrast, site plan review reflects “public interest in environmental and aesthetic considerations, the need to increase the attractiveness of commercial and industrial areas in order to invite economic investment, and the traditional impulse for controls that might preserve the character and value of neighboring residential areas” … . Site plan review furthers those ends by “permit[ting] municipalities to regulate the development and improvement of individual parcels in a manner not covered under the usual provisions of building and zoning codes which establish specific standards for construction of buildings, provide for specific limitations on use, and fix definite numerical criteria for density, building set backs and frontage and height requirements” … .

There is no statutory directive that a municipality employ both zoning and site plan review as mechanisms of land-use control. …

The trial court … relied upon the absence of zoning or other land use policies to determine that the Site Plan Review Law ran afoul of the requirement that “[a]ll town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan” … . A comprehensive plan “need not be contained in a single document; indeed, it need not be written at all”… . Rather, “[t]he court may satisfy itself that the municipality has a [comprehensive] plan and that authorities are acting in the public interest to further it by examining all available and relevant evidence of the municipality’s land use policies” … . Matter of Bovee v Town of Hadley Planning Bd., 2018 NY Slip Op 02387, Third Dept 4-5-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (LAND USE, TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT))/LAND USE ( TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (LAND USE, OWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT))/ZONING (TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT))/SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (LAND USE, TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT))/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (MUNICIPAL LAW, LAND USE, TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT))

April 5, 2018

Environmental Law, Zoning

APPLICATIONS FOR A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN AN AREA OF PROTECTED BEACH VEGETATION PROPERLY DENIED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) properly denied petitioner’s application for a natural resources special permit for the construction of retaining walls. The walls had been construction without applying for the permit. The petitioner’s application for a variance was properly denied because the criteria for a variance are more stringent than the criteria for a natural resources special permit. The retaining wall was built in an area of protected beach vegetation:

“Unlike a variance which gives permission to an owner to use property in a manner inconsistent with a local zoning ordinance, a special exception gives permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, although not necessarily allowed as of right” … . Thus, the burden of proof on the applicant seeking a special use permit “is lighter than that on an applicant seeking a variance, the former only being required to show compliance with any legislatively imposed conditions on an otherwise permitted use, while the latter must show an undue hardship in complying with the ordinance” … . “A denial of a special use permit must be supported by evidence in the record and may not be based solely upon community objection” … . “However, where evidence supporting the denial exists, deference must be given to the discretion of the zoning board, and a court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the zoning board, even if a contrary determination is supported by the record” … . Matter of 278, LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of E. Hampton, 2018 NY Slip Op 01913, Second Dept 3-21-18

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (APPLICATIONS FOR A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN AN AREA OF PROTECTED BEACH VEGETATION PROPERLY DENIED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING (APPLICATIONS FOR A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN AN AREA OF PROTECTED BEACH VEGETATION PROPERLY DENIED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT (APPLICATIONS FOR A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN AN AREA OF PROTECTED BEACH VEGETATION PROPERLY DENIED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/VARIANCES APPLICATIONS FOR A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN AN AREA OF PROTECTED BEACH VEGETATION PROPERLY DENIED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/RETAINING WALLS (APPLICATIONS FOR A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN AN AREA OF PROTECTED BEACH VEGETATION PROPERLY DENIED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/WATERFRONT PROPERTY (APPLICATIONS FOR A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN AN AREA OF PROTECTED BEACH VEGETATION PROPERLY DENIED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

March 21, 2018

Civil Procedure, Land Use, Municipal Law, Zoning

ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the town respondents violated General Municipal Law 239-m by not referring an application for an area variance by respondent mining operation to the planning board. The violation was a jurisdictional defect that did not trigger the 30-day statute of limitations:

“General Municipal Law § 239-m requires that a municipal agency, before taking final action on an application for [land use] approval, refer that application to a county or regional planning board for its recommendation”… . It is undisputed that the ZBA (zoning board of appeals) did not refer the initial application for an area variance to the Cayuga County Planning Board (County Planning Board) before taking final action on that application. Contrary to the contention of the Town respondents, area variances are proposed actions for which referral is required under the statute … . “The alleged failure to comply with the referral provisions of the statute is not a mere procedural irregularity but is rather a jurisdictional defect involving the validity of a legislative act” … . Thus, the ZBA’s failure to refer the initial application for an area variance to the County Planning Board renders the subsequent approval by the ZBA “null and void” … . Matter of Fichera v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2018 NY Slip Op 01843, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

ZONING (VARIANCES, ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/VARIANCES (ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (ZONING, VARIANCES, ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ZONING, ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))

March 16, 2018

Environmental Law, Land Use, Zoning

PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined petitioner property owner had stated causes of action alleging the town's rezoning of the property was arbitrary and capricious and constituted reverse spot zoning. The property had been zoned for resort-type development but, after a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review by the town, the property was rezoned to preclude development. The regulatory taking cause of action was dismissed as not ripe because petitioner had not first sought compensation. The SEQRA review and negative declaration were deemed properly done (requisite hard look taken):

Petitioner asserts, as a result, that the Town Board's decision to rezone the subject property arbitrarily disregarded the comprehensive plan's finding that a planned resort community was appropriate for the subject property. The 2015 report proposed the rezoning in order to address changed conditions in keeping with the spirit of the comprehensive plan, and it is debatable whether petitioner can ultimately “establish[] by competent evidence that the Town Board's decision to . . . change its zoning ordinance as it affects [the subject] property was arbitrary and unreasonable” … . Nevertheless, accepting the allegations in the petition/complaint as true, and noting the absence of documentary proof conclusively establishing a defense to them …, petitioner articulated a cognizable claim.

Petitioner also alleges that the subject property was “arbitrarily singled out for different, less favorable treatment than neighboring properties in a manner that was inconsistent with a well-considered land-use plan” so as to constitute discriminatory reverse spot zoning … . In our view, the … allegations are sufficient to state a cognizable claim for reverse spot zoning … . Matter of Wir Assoc., LLC v Town of Mamakating, 2018 NY Slip Op 00059, Third Dept 1-4-18

ZONING (PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/SPOT ZONING (PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SEQRA REVIEW PROPERLY DONE (THIRD DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SEQRA REVIEW PROPERLY DONE (THIRD DEPT))

January 4, 2018

Environmental Law, Land Use, Zoning

TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the town board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it denied a quarry’s (Troy Sand’s) application for a special use permit allowing the blasting and removal of rock. The court based its ruling on the local law which describes the criteria for issuance of a special use permit. The fact that the town improperly relied on information outside that gathered during the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process did not change the fact that the local law was properly applied and justified the denial:

The first special use standard provides that “[t]he location and size of the use, the nature and intensity of the operations involved, the size of the site in relation to the use and the location of the site with respect to existing or future access shall be in harmony with the orderly development of the district” (Local Law No. 2 [1986] of Town of Nassau art VI [A] [1]). There is ample evidence in the SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] record that the proposed quarry will be a sizable operation, and the final EIS [environmental impact statement] supports the Town Board’s determination that the project would create a highly intensive industrial land use in an area where only one small commercial entity currently exists. …

The second special use standard requires that “the nature and intensity of intended [*5]operations shall not discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings nor impair the value thereof” (Local Law No. 2 [1986] of Town of Nassau art VI [A] [2]). In finding that this standard was not satisfied, the Town Board relied on, among other things, a property value impact analysis, prepared by an expert whose qualifications have not been challenged.

The fourth special use standard requires that “[t]he character and appearance of the proposed use . . . shall be in harmony with the character and appearance of the surrounding neighborhood” (Local Law No. 2 [1986] of Town of Nassau art VI [A] [4]). The Town Board rationally concluded that the proposed project would alter the essential character of the Town and the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised of residential lots and undeveloped forest land valued by residents and tourists alike for the tranquility and recreational opportunities that the rural landscape affords. …

“In sum, it was in no way irrational, on this record, to find that petitioners failed to carry their burden of showing that their contemplated use of the subject property conforms with the standards imposed”… . … We recognize that the Town Board relied on environmental information that was outside of the SEQRA record and made factual findings with no basis in the final EIS in evaluating most of the standards it applied… However, inasmuch as the failure to meet even one applicable standard is a sufficient basis upon which to deny a special use permit application … , we cannot say that the Town Board’s determination was irrational … . Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v Fleming, 2017 NY Slip Op 09222, Third Dept 12-28-17

ZONING (TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (SPECIAL USE PERMIT, BLASTING OPERATION, TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) (TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL USE PERMIT (ZONING, (TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT))

December 28, 2017

Education-School Law, Zoning

SCHOOLS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM ZONING REGULATIONS, ZONING BOARD PROPERLY DENIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR AN ELECTRONIC SIGN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, rejected the school’s argument that it was immune from zoning restrictions. The school had erected an electronic sign which violated the zoning code and the zoning board had denied the school’s application for a variance:

… [T]he Court of Appeals noted that “… general rules . . . were interpreted by some courts to demand a full exemption from zoning rules for all educational and church uses” — an interpretation that “is mandated neither by the case law of our [s]tate nor common sense” … . The Court clarified that it never intended to “render municipalities powerless in the face of a religious or educational institution’s proposed expansion, no matter how offensive, overpowering or unsafe to a residential neighborhood the use might be,” and renewed its rejection of the existence of “any conclusive presumption of an entitlement to an exemption from zoning ordinances” for schools … . The Court thus concluded that “there are many instances in which a particular educational or religious use may actually detract from the public’s health, safety, welfare or morals [and, i]n those instances, the institution may be properly denied” … . Accordingly, the Court held that the presumed beneficial effects of schools and churches “may be rebutted with evidence of a significant impact on traffic congestion, property values, municipal services and the like,” because the “inherent beneficial effects . . . must be weighed against their potential for harming the community” … . * * *

Because petitioner was not immune from and was, therefore, subject to the Town’s zoning ordinances, we must address whether the ZBA [zoning board of appeals] properly denied petitioner’s application for a variance. The Town and the ZBA did not refuse petitioner the opportunity to install any sign. Rather, the ZBA rejected an application for permission to install an electronic message center sign, which is prohibited in the Town and which also failed to comply with at least three additional size and location requirements of the signage provisions of the Town’s zoning ordinance. The ZBA provided rational reasons for its determination, including a concern for traffic safety due to the sign’s brightness and potential to be more distracting and hazardous to passing motorists than an ordinary sign … . That determination was not arbitrary or capricious. Matter of Ravena- Coeymans-Selkirk Cent. Sch. Dist. v Town of Bethlehem, 2017 NY Slip Op 08428, Third Dept 11-30-17

ZONING (SCHOOLS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM ZONING REGULATIONS, ZONING BOARD PROPERLY DENIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR AN ELECTRONIC SIGN (THIRD DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (ZONING, SCHOOLS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM ZONING REGULATIONS, ZONING BOARD PROPERLY DENIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR AN ELECTRONIC SIGN (THIRD DEPT))/VARIANCES (SCHOOLS, SIGNS, SCHOOLS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM ZONING REGULATIONS, ZONING BOARD PROPERLY DENIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR AN ELECTRONIC SIGN (THIRD DEPT))/SIGNS (ZONING, VARIANCES, SCHOOLS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM ZONING REGULATIONS, ZONING BOARD PROPERLY DENIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR AN ELECTRONIC SIGN (THIRD DEPT))

November 30, 2017

Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Land Use, Zoning

ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the action seeking a declaration whether a proposed development was within the jurisdiction of the planning board was premature. Although the board found it had jurisdiction, it also indicated the landowner could obtain a hardship exemption which would allow development:

Here, the Planning Commission’s initial finding that the proposed subdivision constituted “development” within the meaning of the Act (see Environmental Conservation Law § 57-0107[13]; see also Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan § 4.3.5) did not constitute a final determination prohibiting the petitioners from subdividing the property in accordance with their proposal. As the Planning Commission’s determination indicated, the petitioners may still obtain a hardship exemption, which would render the proposed residential use of the property authorized … . Since the petitioners failed to adequately allege that they suffered an actual concrete injury, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as premature … . Matter of Equine Facility, LLC v Pavacic, 2017 NY Slip Op 08371, Second Dept 11-29-17

ZONING (ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RIPENESS, ZONING, ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (ZONING, (ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT))

November 29, 2017

Environmental Law, Municipal Law, Zoning

PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (in part) Supreme Court, determined the town planning board did not take the requisite “hard look” at the combined effect of the proposed development and the proximity of the development to a gas line. Therefore a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was required. Petitioners arguments that the proposed development conflicted with the town’s comprehensive plan and constituted prohibited spot zoning were rejected:

… [W]e agree with the petitioner’s contention that the Town Board failed to take a “hard look” at the environmental impact of placing the proposed development in close proximity to the existing Columbia Gas pipeline, and the combined environmental impact of the pipeline and the development together. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter DEIS) contains only a brief mention of the pipeline which bisects the property, and Columbia Gas was omitted from the list of “interested agencies.” In addition, there is nothing in the Town Board’s determinations that suggests that it considered these issues outside the context of the DEIS and the final environmental impact statement (hereinafter FEIS), and they are not discussed in the Town’s SEQRA findings statement. Thus, the record supports the petitioner’s contention that the Town Board did not take a “hard look” at these issues or make a “reasoned elaboration” of the basis for its determination regarding them … , and the Supreme Court should have annulled the Town Board’s determination resolving to approve the findings statement pursuant to SEQRA for the proposed zone change. Matter of Youngewirth v Town of Ramapo Town Bd., 2017 NY Slip Op 07744, Second Dept 11-8-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ZONING, PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT)/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))

November 8, 2017

TOWN’S SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR ZONING ORDINANCES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LAW (THIRD DEPT).

APPLICATIONS FOR A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS IN AN AREA OF PROTECTED BEACH VEGETATION PROPERLY DENIED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

ZONING BOARD’S FAILURE TO REFER THE AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, DETERMINATION GRANTING THE VARIANCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

SCHOOLS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM ZONING REGULATIONS, ZONING BOARD PROPERLY DENIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR AN ELECTRONIC SIGN (THIRD DEPT).

ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).

PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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