You are here: / Zoning
, , , ,

LOCAL LAW REVISING ZONING DISTRICTS AND ALLOWING MINING WAS VALIDLY ENACTED; CONTRARY TO SUPREME COURT’S FINDING, TWO PETITIONERS HAD STANDING BY VIRTUE OF THEIR OWNING PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE NEW ZONING PROVISIONS; ONE PORTION OF THE LOCAL LAW USURPED THE POWERS OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) AND WAS ANNULLED; ANOTHER PORTION ADDRESSING TRUCK TRAFFIC VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND WAS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a comprehensive and detailed decision which can not be fairly summarized here, determined a local law which included and new zoning map, revised zoning districts and allowed mining on properties with existing permits was validly enacted. Disagreeing with Supreme Court, the Third Department noted that two of the petitioners, Holser and Hastings, had standing to challenge the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review by virtue of owning property subject to the rezoning ordinance. The court found that one section of the Local Law usurped powers reserved under SEQRA requiring annulment of that section. The court found that another paragraph of the Local Law prohibiting the transport of minerals on town roads did not carve out exceptions for deliveries as required by the Vehicle and Traffic Law. With respect to the standing issue, the court wrote:

For purposes of standing, when a property owner challenges the SEQRA review process undertaken in conjunction with a zoning enactment to which its property is subject, “ownership of the subject property confers a legally cognizable interest in being assured that the Town satisfied SEQRA before taking action to rezone its land”  … . “[S]tanding should be liberally constructed so that land use disputes are settled on their own merits rather than by preclusive, restrictive standing rules. To that end, the allegations contained in a petition are deemed to be true and are construed in the light most favorable to the petitioner” … . Holser and Hastings have demonstrated that they reside in the Town and own property therein. It is not necessary to assert “proof of special damage or in-fact injury” … , nor do they have to state a noneconomic environmental harm. All that is necessary for standing is to demonstrate ownership of property subject to the rezoning ordinance … . Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v Town of Sand Lake, 2020 NY Slip Op 04212, Thrid Dept 7-23-20

 

, ,

CITY TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, INCLUDING ITS EFFECTS ON RENTER DISPLACEMENT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, ruled that the City Council, in approving the redevelopment plan, had taken the requisite hard look pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQRA) at the environmental impacts of the plan as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS):

Petitioners argued that the City violated SEQRA and CEQR by failing to take a “hard look” at eight issues: (1) impact of rezoning on existing preferential rents and effect on renter displacement; (2) impact on area racial makeup; (3) impact on minority and women-owned businesses (MWBEs); (4) accuracy of prior City FEIS projections on rezoning impacts; (5) impact of loss of the existing Inwood library; (6) impact on emergency response times; (7) cumulative impact of other potential area rezonings, including the adjacent 40-acre MTA railyard; and (8) speculative purchase of residential buildings in the wake of the rezoning. …

We find that the City’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the evidence, or contrary to law. The City took the requisite “hard look” at all the issues requiring study under SEQRA/CEQR … , but did not have to parse every sub-issue as framed by petitioners … . Moreover, the City was “entitled to rely on the accepted methodology set forth in the [CEQR] Technical Manual” … , including in determining what issues were beyond the scope of SEQRA/CEQR review. Matter of Northern Manhattan Is Not for Sale v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 04235, First Dept 7-23-20

 

, , ,

THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DOLLAR STORE; THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT NEED TO SEND THE MATTER TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO INTERPRET A ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH WAS ONLY A GUIDELINE CONCERNING THE ALLOWED LENGTH OF A BUILDING FACADE; THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, noting that the abutting neighbors (Cady and Crawley) had standing to contest the town planning board’s approval of the construction of a Dollar Store, determined Supreme Court should not have found that the matter must be sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a variance proceeding. Because the zoning ordinance in question, concerning the length of a building facade, was only a guideline, it was not necessary to involve the ZBA to interpret it:

Cady and Cawley’s residence is directly adjacent to the proposed construction site, and the proposed retail store would be directly across the woods from their property. The store’s main parking lot, which is located behind the store, is in the line of sight of Cady and Cawley’s property. As a result, the store is likely to obstruct or interfere with the scenic views within the scenic viewshed overlay district from Cady and Cawley’s property. Cady and Cawley have standing because they have demonstrated that they would suffer an “injury in fact – i.e., actual harm by the action challenged that differs from that suffered by the public at large — and that such injury falls within the zone of interests, or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” … . * * *

… [T]he Town zoning code states that “the length of any faÇade should generally not exceed 50 feet maximum [horizontal dimension]”. Insofar as the subject provision lacks any compulsory language, … this provision is deliberately phrased …  as a guideline, rather than as a prohibition; in other words, there was no requirement for a referral to the ZBA to determine the plain language of the statute. …

… [O]ur review of the record reveals that the Planning Board underwent a nearly four-year process that involved in-depth environmental impact reports, multiple draft EISes [environmental impact statements] and public hearings, which formed the basis of the FEIS [final environments impact statement] and SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] findings statement. Accordingly, we find that the Planning Board complied with its procedural and substantive requirements under SEQRA … . Matter of Arthur M. v Town of Germantown Planning Bd., 2020 NY Slip Op 03440, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

, , ,

LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF PROPERTIES WHERE THE OWNER DOES NOT RESIDE IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A REGULATORY TAKING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s constitutional attack on a Local Law which prohibited short-term rental of properties where the owner did not reside did not constitute a regulatory taking of the property:

In 2012, petitioner-plaintiff (plaintiff) purchased a single-family residence (subject premises) located in respondent-defendant Town of Grand Island (Town) for the purpose of renting it out on a short-term basis, i.e., for periods of less than 30 days. Plaintiff never resided at the subject premises. In 2015, the Town enacted Local Law 9 of 2015 (Local Law 9), which amended the Town Zoning Code to prohibit short-term rentals in certain zoning districts, except where the owner also resided on the premises. The Town enacted the law in response to significant adverse impacts to the community that it found were caused by permitting short-term rental of residential properties to occur. Local Law 9 contained a one-year amortization period—which could be extended up to three times upon application—during which preexisting short-term rental properties could cease operation. * * *

… [P]laintiff did not submit evidence establishing that, due to the prohibition under Local Law 9 on short-term rentals, the subject premises was not capable of producing a reasonable return on his investment or that it was not adaptable to other suitable private use. Instead, plaintiff’s submissions showed a “mere diminution in the value of the property, . . . [which] is insufficient to demonstrate a [regulatory] taking” … . Matter of Wallace v Town of Grand Is., 2020 NY Slip Op 03301, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, , ,

THE TOWN’S SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF A CAMPGROUND WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE CAMPGROUND CONSTITUTED ILLEGAL CONTRACT ZONING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town planning board’s adoption of negative declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) with respect to the expansion of a campground (BBFC) was arbitrary and capricious. The Second Department further found that the development contract between the town and BBFC constituted illegal contract zoning:

The Planning Board failed to adequately assess and consider the potential environmental impacts of the construction and expansion of the campground from 74 campsites to 154 campsites, and adopted the negative declaration based largely upon its finding that the campground had been operating 154 campsites—albeit illegally—for many years. Under the circumstances, the Planning Board’s adoption of the negative declaration was arbitrary and capricious.

… [T]he development agreement entered into between the Town Board and BBFC constituted illegal contract zoning. “[N]o municipal government has the power to make contracts that control or limit it in the exercise of its legislative powers and duties” … . The test is whether the development agreement committed the Town to a specific course of action with respect to a zoning amendment … . The Town Board agreed to amend the zoning code to permit 210-day occupancy limit, a change from the current 120-day occupancy limit, in exchange for BBFC’s agreement that the 210-day occupancy limit would apply to all of the campsites, including the original 74 approved campsites. This was an agreement binding on BBFC to give a form of consideration in exchange for legislative action and to limit the Town Board’s authority to change the bulk requirements in the zoning code until such time as BBFC would not be negatively affected by such change … . Matter of Neeman v Town of Warwick, 2020 NY Slip Op 03112, Second Dept 6-3-20

In the same matter, the Second Department determined the granting of an area variance for the campground, based upon the nonconforming campsites which had already been constructed, was arbitrary and capricious. Matter of Neeman v Town of Warwick, 2020 NY Slip Op 03113, Second Dept 6-3-20

,

THE QUARRY OWNER HAD, AS A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE, A VESTED RIGHT TO MINE THAT PORTION OF ITS LAND SUBJECT TO A PENDING APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ZONING BOARD AND SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner had a vested right to mine that portion of its land subject to a pending application for a mining permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Petitioner operated a quarry, which was an allowed pre-existing use of the land, and had a DEC permit to mine 37.5 acres (the entire parcel is 241 acres) The petitioner was seeking a permit from the DEC to expand the number of acres to be mined from 37.5 acres to 94 acres. While the application for the permit was pending, the town enacted a new zoning law that allowed mining on only those lands subject to an existing DEC permit. Petitioner sought a declaration that it had a vested right to mine its entire parcel as a prior nonconforming use and Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding:

” [N]onconforming uses or structures, in existence when a zoning ordinance is enacted, are, as a general rule, constitutionally protected and will be permitted to continue, notwithstanding the contrary provisions of the ordinance'” … . ” By its very nature, quarrying involves a unique use of land. . . . [A]s a matter of practicality as well as economic necessity, a quarry operator will not excavate his entire parcel of land at once, but will leave areas in reserve, virtually untouched until they are actually needed'” … . “[W]here . . . the owner engages in substantial quarrying activities on a distinct parcel of land over a long period of time and these activities clearly manifest an intent to appropriate the entire parcel to the particular business of quarrying, the extent of [the] protection afforded by the nonconforming use will extend to the boundaries of the parcel even though extensive excavation may have been limited to only a portion of the property” … . …

… [T]he petitioner demonstrated that it has a vested right to mine those 94 acres as a prior nonconforming use … . In opposition, the respondents/defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Further, for the same reasons, the petitioner demonstrated that so much of the ZBA’s determination as found that the petitioner does not have a vested right to mine those 94 acres was affected by an error of law, arbitrary, and capricious … . …

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the petitioner’s motion to the extent of declaring that the petitioner has a vested right to mine 94 acres of its property as a prior nonconforming use … . Matter of Red Wing Props., Inc. v Town of Rhinebeck, 2020 NY Slip Op 03119, Second Dept 6-3-20

 

,

SALE OF LAND ORIGINALLY SET ASIDE FOR A CEMETERY WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS CONSTITUTED AN ABANDONMENT OF THE CEMETERY-RELATED USE-RESTRICTIONS ON THE LAND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, determined the (1907) restrictions on land originally set aside for use as a cemetery had been abandoned (by the sale of the land in 1908) and the single-family residential zoning restrictions subsequently imposed on the land were enforceable, despite the repurchase of the land by the operator of the cemetery:

“A holder of a deed of a cemetery lot . . . acquires only a privilege or license, exclusive of others, to make interments in the lot purchased, only so long as the lot remains a cemetery” … . However, such privilege or license may be extinguished upon abandonment of the cemetery use … . * * *

… “[W]here a cemetery has been so neglected as entirely to lose its identity as such, and is no longer known, recognized, and respected by the public as a cemetery, it may be said to be abandoned” … . Moreover, an affirmative act that “undoes the character and association” of the cemetery “and leaves the land subject to sale or to legal partition . . . loses its sacredness as a resting place for the dead” … . …

Here, the 1908 sale of the 33-acre parcel … to … a private individual, which included the 12.5-acre parcel at issue, constituted an affirmative act of abandonment of the cemetery use of that property. The petitioner failed to submit any evidence to establish a continuous and uninterrupted relationship between itself and the persons or entities that owned the property from 1908 to 1971, when it reacquired the property … . Matter of Ferncliff Cemetery Assn. v Town of Greenburgh, 2020 NY Slip Op 02925, Second Dept 5-20-20

 

,

ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE WAS BASED PRIMARILY ON COMMUNITY OPPOSITION; THE DENIAL WAS PROPERLY ANNULLED BY SUPREME COURT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Board of Zoning Appeals improperly denied petitioner’s application for a variance based primarily on community opposition:

… [W]e cannot say that respondent’s determination to deny the area variance was rational. Respondent’s findings reflect that an environmental review of the proposed project concluded that there would be no significant impacts to, among other things, aesthetic or historic resources, the air, land, drainage or open space area. The findings also indicated that the City of Ithaca Planning Board, at best, gave an equivocal opinion about the proposed project. In this regard, the findings stated that the Planning Board was “unsure” whether the requested variance was consistent with the neighborhood and that it was ‘conflicted’ about petitioner’s appeal to respondent. Furthermore, petitioner’s proposed use of the property was a permitted use in the neighborhood. In addition, the record contains comments from individuals in the neighborhood — some of which supported and some of which disapproved of petitioner’s request. Yet, respondent’s consideration of the requisite factors (see Code of City of Ithaca § 325-40 [C] [3] [b] [1]-[5]) rested primarily on the opposing comments provided by those individuals living in the neighborhood … . Given that the views of the community in opposition to petitioner’s request by itself does not suffice to deny a variance, respondent’s determination lacks a rational basis … . Matter of 209 Hudson St., LLC v City of Ithaca Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2020 NY Slip Op 02311, Third Dept 4-16-20

 

, ,

VILLAGE BOARD WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF A ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH IS A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION NOT SUBJECT TO AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the village board properly declined to consider an application to rezone the subject property, which was an exercise of a legislative function:

“[T]he amendment of a zoning ordinance is a purely legislative function” … . The Village Board is vested with discretion to amend its zoning ordinance, and it is not required to consider and vote upon every application for a zoning change (see Village Law § 7-708 …). Thus, in the present case, the Village Board’s determinations not to consider the plaintiffs/petitioners’ applications were a legislative function not subject to review under CPLR article 78 … . Matter of Hampshire Recreation, LLC v Village of Mamaroneck, 2020 NY Slip Op 02062, Second Dept 3-25-20

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PERMITS GRANTING THE CONVERSION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FROM MANUFACTURING TO RETAIL; PROXIMITY TO DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not have standing to contest the defendant City’s issuing permits allowing defendant CAB to convert property from manufacturing to retail. Plaintiff operated a grocery store 450 feet from CAB’s property. The Second Department held proximity was not enough to confer standing on plaintiff:

“In land use matters, . . . [the plaintiff] must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public 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 [property owner] must establish that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interests the statute protects” … . Thus, “even where [the property owner’s] premises are physically close to the subject property, an ad hoc determination may be required as to whether a particular [property owner] itself has a legally protectable interest so as to confer standing” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged standing on the basis of proximity, issues and interests within the zone of interests, and adverse impacts. We disagree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff had standing to commence this action. The plaintiff failed to allege any harm distinct from that of the community at large … . 159-MP Corp. v CAB Bedford, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01892, Second Dept 3-18-20

 

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