April 24, 2015

Uncertified Zoning Board Record is Not Fatal to Defense of Article 78 Proceeding

The Appellate Division overturned the lower court reversal of a zoning board of appeals (ZBA) decision for failure to certify the record filed in response to an Article 78 proceeding. In Matter of Robert E. Haveli Revocable Trust v.Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Monroe, the Appellate Division found that the lower court was in error by reversing the ZBA merely because the record of proceedings filed with the court was not certified.

"Since there was no allegation or indication that a substantial right of the petitioner was prejudiced by the lack of a certification, the Supreme Court should have disregarded the defect, and decided the matter on the merits (see CPLR 2001..."

The Court then went on to decide the merits of the case which involved a question of whether the use proposed by the petitioner was a permitted use or, as determined by the ZBA, a conditional use. The Petitioner proposed to operate a business offering tire sales and service. The schedule of uses listed retail sales and automotive repairs as a permitted use but sale and service of tires as a conditional (special permit) use. The Court noted the ordinance provides that in case of a conflict the more restrictive provisions govern and held:

"'A statute such as a zoning ordinance must be construed as a whole, reading all of its parts together, all of which should be harmonized to ascertain legislative intent, and it should be given its plain meaning, avoiding a construction that renders superfluous any language in the ordinance'.... Construing the Zoning Code with its schedules as a whole, it provides that tire sales and related services are conditional uses."

-Steven Silverberg


April 11, 2015

Grant of Use Variance Reversed

The difficulty of meeting the burden of proof for a use variance was demonstrated again this week. In Matter of Nemeth v. Village of Hancock Zoning Board of Appeals, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court and the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), holding that a use variance to expand a nonconforming manufacturing use in a residential district should not have been granted. In previous litigation it was determined that the facility had been illegally expanded in 2001, through an addition that expanded the manufacturing facility. Thereafter, the owner applied for and obtained a use variance. A neighboring property owner brought this Article 78 proceeding but lost in State Supreme Court.

The Appellate Divison found that both the ZBA and lower court erred. The property at issue had been used as a manufacturing facility prior to a zoning amendment in 1983, that rezoned the property to residential use. While the existing facility could continue as a legal nonconforming use, the Court found that the owner had failed to demonstrate by the required "dollars and cents proof" that the property could not provide a "reasonable return" either as a manufacturing facility, without the addition or be converted to a permitted residential use.

The Court found:
"the evidence presented at the hearing established that the addition is used to house older equipment that has been replaced by more advanced, efficient equipment. While the record is unclear as to whether the older machinery stored in the addition is still being put to productive use and contributing to the manufacturing process, no financial evidence was presented as to the profitability, if any, generated from those machines in relation to the business as a whole. Perry Kuehn's bare conclusory statements that an additional '10 to 20 percent' of revenue would be needed to find a similarly sized location to house the older manufacturing equipment, and that 'we [would] go out of business' without the addition, are simply insufficient to constitute the requisite "dollars and cents" proof necessary to demonstrate an inability to realize a reasonable return..."

The Court went on the address the fact that the record was inadequate to determine if the property could be converted to a permitted residential use. The Court further noted that the question of conversion to a residential use related to the entire property, not just the addition.

" no evidence was presented as to the financial implications of converting the entire property to residential use, which is a use permitted in that zone. While financial evidence was presented on the cost of converting the addition to a residential use...The fact that respondents' application for a use variance was limited to the addition is of no moment; the inquiry as to an inability to realize a reasonable return may not be segmented to examine less than all of an owner's property rights subject to a regulatory regime..."

-Steven Silverberg

March 24, 2015

Denial of Area Variances Upheld

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court and upheld the denial of an application for area variances to construct an apartment building in a neighborhood largely consisting of single family homes. In the Matter of People, Inc. V. City of Tonawanda Zoning Board of Appeals, the Court held that the lower court was in error in granting the petition

The Court restated the standard applicable to reviewing determinations of a zoning board of appeals noting the limitation placed upon a court to determine if there was a rational basis for the challenged decision.

", when reviewing the denial of an application for an area variance, 'review [of such a determination] is . . . limited to the issue whether the action taken by the [board] was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion'..."

In examining the standards (General City Law section 81-b) for determining whether to grant an area variance, the Court found that constructing an apartment building in a single family neighborhood would cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. In addition the Court held:

"that the variances necessary to accommodate an apartment building would be substantial ...and that the petitioners' difficulty was self-created because they were aware of the property's zoning classification when they purchased the property..."

As a result, the Court found that, in denying the application, the Zoning Board properly weighed the benefits to the Petitioner as against the detriment to the neighborhood.

-Steven Silverberg

February 22, 2015

Involved Agency Limited to SEQRA Record Developed by Lead Agency

An involved agency, while making its own SEQRA findings, is limited to the record developed by the lead agency. In a pair of related cases, Troy Sand & Gravel,Co. Inc v. Town of Nassau ("the DJ Action") and Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel, Co. Inc., ("the Article 78") the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's granting of summary judgment to the Town based upon a misinterpretation of the Appellate Division's previous ruling.

These cases have a lengthy history, as outlined by the Court in the DJ Action. The NY DEC, as lead agency, conducted a full environmental review of the Plaintiff's proposed mining operation. The Town Board, as an involved agency, participated in the SEQRA review by the DEC. In a previous proceeding the Court held the Town was correct in seeking to make its own SEQRA findings with respect the zoning approvals required from the Town.

However, in the current DJ Action the lower court found that the Town could further develop the environmental record.The Court reversed noting:

"...we did not say that the Town's independent review includes the ability to now gather additional environmental impact information beyond the full SEQRA record. Rather, in conducting its own jurisdictional review of the environmental impact of the project, the Town is required by the overall policy goals of SEQRA and the specific regulations governing findings made by "involved agencies" to rely on the fully developed SEQRA record in making the findings that will provide a rationale for its zoning determinations."

The Court went on to reject the Town's claim that it's zoning procedures gave it authority to gather additional environmental information holding instead:

"...the EIS 'fully evaluates the potential environmental effects, assesses mitigation measures, and considers alternatives to the proposed action' (Matter of Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y. v Board of Estimate of City of N.Y., 72 NY2d at 680, citing ECL 8-0109 [4], [2]). While the Town maintains its jurisdiction over the zoning determinations and, as we have previously held, its SEQRA findings may differ from DEC's findings (see 101 AD3d at 1508; Matter of Albany-Greene Sanitation v Town of New Baltimore Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 263 AD2d 644, 646 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 752 [1999]), the Town "must rely upon the [final EIS] as the basis for [its] review of the environmental impacts that [it is] required to consider in connection with subsequent permit applications" (Matter of Guido v Town of Ulster Town Bd., 74 AD3d 1536, 1537 [2010], citing 6 NYCRR 617.6 [b] [3] [iii])."

Therefore the Court ordered that the Town must make its own findings based upon the record developed by the DEC.

In the related Article 78 the Court found the Town had been justified in rescinding its previous determination that Plaintiff's zoning application had been complete. Therefore, the mere rescission did not make the issue ripe for review. Noting its findings in the DJ Action, the Court found the argument that the rescission would automatically result in a further costly environmental review is speculative and is therefore not ripe for review.

"...at this stage of the proceeding, the Town Board has merely rescinded its resolution in response to our prior decision vacating the preliminary injunction (see Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v Town of Nassau, 101 AD3d at 1506-1507), and we have now held in the declaratory judgment action that the Town's determination of the proposed quarry's environmental impact must necessarily be based on the environmental impact statement record (Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v Town of Nassau, AD3d at ). Accordingly, any harm to petitioner at this stage is merely speculative, may be ameliorated by further proceedings and is insufficient to warrant judicial review (see Matter of New York State Inspection, Sec. & Law Enforcement Empls., Dist. Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 233, 240 [1984]; Matter of Adirondack Council, Inc. v Adirondack Park Agency, 92 AD3d 188, 191 [2012]; Matter of Wal-Mart Stores v Campbell, 238 AD2d 831, 832-833 [1997])."

-Steven Silverberg

January 30, 2015

Court Upholds Denial of Area Variances

The Appellate Division upheld the denial of area variances to permit the legalization of an addition to an accessory structure. In the Matter of Sacher v. Village of Old Brookville, the Court and the Zoning Board appear to have been influenced by the fact that the applicant had constructed the addition without benefit of a permit.

After stating the general rule that judicial review of the decisions of a zoning board are limited to "whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion," the Court then reviewed the balancing test the zoning board must consider.

" A zoning board must also consider "(1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance" (Village Law § 7-712-b[3][b])."

Noting that the members of the zoning board may also rely upon there own observations, the Court analyzed the conclusions of the Zoning Board, finding:

"The evidence before the Board and the Board's visual inspection of the property supported its conclusion that granting the proposed variances would be a detriment to nearby properties and produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Additionally, the Board rationally concluded that the requested variances were substantial in nature and that the petitioners had a feasible alternative to increasing the size of the accessory building, since there were other structures on the petitioners' property which could provide additional storage space. Likewise, the petitioners' hardship was self-created in that they completed the additions to the accessory building without obtaining a building permit (see Matter of Caspian Realty, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenburgh, 68 AD3d 62, 77; Matter of Merlotto v Town of Patterson Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 43 AD3d 926, 930-931; Matter of Becvar v Scheyer, 250 AD2d 842, 843). Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the Board "was entitled to consider the effect its decision would have as a precedent" (Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d 514, 516)."

-Steven Silverberg

January 5, 2015

Zoning Board Improperly Applied the Abandoned Practical Difficulty Test to Area Variance

The Appellate Division had to once again remind a Zoning Board of Appeals that practical difficulty is no longer the test for an area variance. In Matter of Mimassi v. Town of Whitestown Zoning Board of Appeals, the Appellate Division reversed, in part, the lower court's dismissal of the petition to review the Zoning Board's denial of an area variance.

There were two parts to the Petitioner's claims. The first was that the Zoning Board failed to follow precedent. The Court denied that portion of the claim. "Petitioner failed to establish that respondent's determination on another application was based on essentially the same facts as petitioner's present application (see Matter of 194 Main, Inc. v Board of Zoning Appeals for Town of N. Hempstead, 71 AD3d 1028, 1030; see generally Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 NY2d 86, 93; Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 977)."

However, the Court reversed the lower court on the second prong of the Petition and remitted the matter for further findings, noting that the Zoning Board had failed to apply the appropriate balancing test to the area variance application.

"Here, respondent based its determination upon factors and other criteria relevant to the former "practical difficulty" test, which is no longer followed, rather than on the factors set forth in Town Law § 267-b (3) (b) (see Matter of Cohen v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Saddle Rock, 100 NY2d 395, 402; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384). Inasmuch as respondent failed to engage in the necessary balancing test, we vacate the determination, and we remit the matter to respondent for a de novo determination (see Matter of Nye v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Grand Is., 81 AD3d 1455, 1456; Matter of Fusco v Russell, 283 AD2d 936, 936). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit."

-Steven Silverberg

October 17, 2014

N.Y. Court of Appeals "Clarifies" Whether a Parking Variance is a Use or Area Variance

This week the New York Court of Appeals clarified that a parking variance is an area variance, except when it is not. In Matter of Colin Realty Co. v. Town of North Hempstead, the Court concluded that, in most instances, a parking variance is an area variance. However, at the very end of the decision, the Court inserted a line that appears to open the door for further interpretation and possible confusion.

The case involves a commercial use in an older building that does not have adequate off-street parking under the more modern requirements of the amended zoning ordinance. The local zoning board granted an area variance. A neighboring property owner challenged the decision arguing, in part, that it should be a use variance. The Petitioner relied on language in Matter of Offshore Rest. Corp. v. Linden, 30 NY2d 160 (1972).

In Offshore the Court stated:

"To be sure, off-street parking restrictions do not fall easily into either classification; hence, the divergence among the cases. Parking restrictions are an adjunct restriction sometimes tied to a use and at other times to an area restriction, generally depending upon the problem created by the use or the limited area involved. On this view, in determining the rules to govern variance from parking restrictions one should look to the reasons for the restrictions and then adapt rules applicable to use or area variances, whichever best meets the problem...."

Noting that the statute governing variances was amended in 1994 to more clearly define both use and area variances and the criteria applicable to each, the Court seem poised to make an unequivocal statement that parking variances are area variances when it held:

"Finally, and whether dictum or not, Off Shore's declarations about use variances for off-street parking requirements have effectively been superseded by statute. Off Shore requested a building permit to make alterations in connection with a proposed change from one use permitted in the zoning district (delicatessen and restaurant) to another (cocktail lounge and restaurant). But as of July 1, 1994, General City Law § 81-b (1) has defined a 'use variance' as an authorization for the use of land for a purpose 'otherwise not allowed or . . . prohibited' in the zoning district; and an 'area variance' as an authorization to use land 'in a manner which is not allowed by the dimensional or physical requirements' of the zoning regulations (see also Town Law § 267 [1]; Village Law § 7-712 [1]). Off-street parking requirements, while differing depending on use, regulate how the property's area may be developed, akin to minimum lot size or set-back restrictions."

Then the Court added language this writer views as creating the potential for confusion by noting:

"Accordingly, area variance rules apply to requests to relax off-street parking requirements so long as the underlying use is permitted in the zoning district; use variance rules prevail only if the variance is sought in connection with a use prohibited or otherwise not allowed in the district (see generally, Terry Rice, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 61, Town Law § 267-b at 294-295)."

Thus, it appears that if you merely require a parking variance for two additional parking spaces, where off-street parking is a permitted accessory use, the balancing test for an area variance applies. However, does the Court mean to say that if you also require a use variance, the zoning board should apply the dollars and cents proof standard to that portion of the use that also seeks two fewer parking spaces than are permitted? This could result in some interesting decisions.

-Steven Silverberg

August 31, 2014

Court Upholds Denial of Special Permit

The Appellate Division, in a somewhat rare instance, upheld the denial of a special permit to expand an existing day care center. In Matter of Smyles v. Board of Trustees of Incorporated Village of Mineola, the Court found there was sufficient expert evidence that the expansion of the facility would have an adverse impact on traffic, parking and available emergency services.

"A denial of a special use permit must be supported by evidence in the record and may not be based solely upon community objection (see Matter of Green 2009, Inc. v Weiss, 114 AD3d 788; Matter of White Castle Sys., Inc. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 93 AD3d 731). However, where evidence supporting the denial exists, deference must be given to the discretion of the authorized board, and a court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the authorized board, even if a contrary determination is supported by the record...
Here, evidence in the record, including testimony by experts in traffic and real estate and by neighboring property owners, supports the findings of the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Mineola (hereinafter the Board) that the proposed expansion of the subject day care facility into vacant retail space would result in a dangerous traffic situation, an over-intensification of land use with respect to available parking, and a hazard with respect to the provision of emergency services. Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the Board was entitled to base its decision upon, among other things, its members' personal knowledge and familiarity with the community (see Matter of Russia House at Kings Point, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Kings Point, 67 AD3d 1019; Matter of Thirty W. Park Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 43 AD3d 1068). Accordingly, the Board's determination to deny a special use permit on the ground that it would not be in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the community was supported by the record, and was not arbitrary and capricious."

-Steven Silverberg

July 31, 2014

Court Restates Standard of Review for Zoning Board Decisions

The Appellate Division restated the limited nature of judicial review of the decisions of a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). In Matter of Slonim v. Town of E. Hampton Zoning Bd. of Appeals, the Court noted that the ZBA properly upheld the determination of the building inspector finding that a particular retail use was pre-exisiting.

"In a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of a Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter the Zoning Board), which was made after a quasi-administrative proceeding, judicial review is limited to considering only whether the Zoning Board's discretionary determination was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or irrational... Thus, the Zoning Board determination at issue in this proceeding may be set aside only if the Zoning Board acted illegally, arbitrarily, abused its discretion, or succumbed to generalized community opposition, and must be sustained if the determination has a rational basis... To the extent the phrase "substantial evidence" arises in cases involving challenges to Zoning Board determinations made after a quasi-administrative proceeding, in this context that standard is limited to examining 'whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the determination' ...."

-Steven Silverberg

June 30, 2014

Town Zoning Law May Ban Hydrofracking in New York

A divided New York Court of Appeals validated local zoning laws of two towns that banned hydrofracking in that Town. In Matter of Wallach v. Town of Dryden, the Court held that state law did not preempt the right of local municipalities to ban certain mining activities.

The Court noted that as "... a fundamental precept, the Legislature has recognized that the local regulation of land use is '[a]mong the most significant powers and duties granted . . . to a town government' (Town Law § 272-a [1] [b])." Nonetheless, municipalities may not adopt laws that are inconsistent with State laws of general applicability. Therefore, the Court stated "... we do not lightly presume preemption where the preeminent power of a locality to regulate land use is at stake. Rather, we will invalidate a zoning law only where there is a 'clear expression of legislative intent to preempt local control over land use'...".

The parties challenging the local laws relied upon specific provisions in State law that provide "'... provisions of this article [i.e., the OGSML] shall supersede all local laws or ordinances relating to the regulation of the oil, gas and solution mining industries; but shall not supersede local government jurisdiction over local roads or the rights of local governments under the real property tax law' (ECL 23-0303 [2] [emphasis added])."

The Court stated that the relevant inquiry is that the "... scope of section 23-0303 (2) must be construed in light of our decision in Matter of Frew Run Gravel Prods. v Town of Carroll (71 NY2d 126 [1987]), which articulated the analytical framework to determine whether a supersession clause expressly preempts a local zoning law. There, we held that this question may be answered by considering three factors: (1) the plain language of the supersession clause; (2) the statutory scheme as a whole; and (3) the relevant legislative history. The goal of this three-part inquiry, as with any statutory interpretation analysis, is to discern the Legislature's intent."

While the Court went into a much more detailed analysis than can be repeated here, applying the tests established by the Court in the Frew Run case, the Court held:

"...the distinction we drew in Frew Run applies with equal force here, such that ECL 23-0303 (2) is most naturally read as preempting only local laws that purport to regulate the actual operations of oil and gas activities, not zoning ordinances that restrict or prohibit certain land uses within town boundaries. Plainly, the zoning laws in these cases are directed at regulating land use generally and do not attempt to govern the details, procedures or operations of the oil and gas industries....

it is readily apparent that the OGSML is concerned with the Department's regulation and authority regarding the safety, technical and operational aspects of oil and gas activities across the State. The supersession clause in ECL 23-0303 (2) fits comfortably within this legislative framework since it invalidates local laws that would intrude on the Department's regulatory oversight of the industry's operations, thereby ensuring uniform exploratory and extraction processes related to oil and gas production. Similar to the scope of the MLRL in Frew Run, we perceive nothing in the various provisions of the OGSML indicating that the supersession clause was meant to be broader than required to preempt conflicting local laws directed at the technical operations of the industry....

In 1978, the State Legislature amended the OGSML to modify its policy by replacing the phrase 'to foster, encourage and promote the development, production and utilization of natural resources of oil and gas in this state in such a manner as will prevent waste" with "to regulate the development, production and utilization of natural resources of oil and gas in this state in such a manner as will prevent waste' (ECL 23-0301, as amended by L 1978, ch 396, § 1 [emphasis added]). The legislation also transferred the task of encouraging and promoting the prudent development of New York's energy resources to the Energy Law (see Energy Law § 3-101, as amended by L 1978, ch 396, § 2) for the purpose of establishing 'the Energy Office as the State agency primarily responsible for promoting the development of energy resources" and removing 'such promotional responsibilities from the Department of Environmental Conservation which would, however, retain regulatory responsibilities over such resources" (Governor's Program Bill Mem, Bill Jacket, L 1978, ch 396)....

In sum, application of the three Frew Run factors — the plain language, statutory scheme and legislative history — to these appeals leads us to conclude that the Towns appropriately acted within their home rule authority in adopting the challenged zoning laws. We can find no legislative intent, much less a requisite 'clear expression,' requiring the preemption of local land use regulations."

The court noted that the policy determination of whether hydrofracking is beneficial or not was not before the Court and only the narrow issue of whether local zoning was preempted by the State Environmental Conservation Law.

-Steven M. Silverberg

May 25, 2014

Takings Claim Ripe Despite No Final Determination

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held there was a claim that was ripe for adjudication, in view of the ten years of delay in processing the Plaintiffs application, even though there was no final determination on Plaintiff's subdivision application. In Sherman v. Town of Chester, the Court's summary of the background, drawing an analogy to the novel "Catch 22," is worth reading verbatim:

"Hungry Joe packed up his bags and wrote happy letters home. He had flown the 25 missions required to complete a tour of duty. But things were not so simple on Catch‐22’s Pianosa island. He soon discovered that Colonel Cathcart had just raised the number of missions to 30, forcing Hungry Joe to unpack his bags and rewrite his happy letters. At the time, Yossarian had flown 23 missions.The Colonel later increased the number to 35. When Yossarian was just three away from that mark, the number was increased to 40, and then to 45. When Yossarian had 44 missions under his belt, the Colonel made the number 50. And later 55. When Yossarian reached 51 missions, he knew it was no cause to celebrate: 'He’ll raise them,' Yossarian understood. He appealed to squadron commander Major Major to be exempted from flying his four remaining missions. 'Every time I get close he raises them,' Yossarian complained. Major Major responded, 'Perhaps he won’t this time.' But of course Yossarian was right. Colonel Cathcart raised the number to 60, then 65, then 70, then 80, with no end in sight.

Plaintiff Steven M. Sherman must have felt a lot like Yossarian in his decade of dealing with defendant Town of Chester. In 2000, Sherman applied for subdivision approval while he was in the process of buying a nearly 400 acre piece of land for $2.7 million. That application marked the beginning of his journey through the Town’s ever‐changing labyrinth of red tape. In 2003, the Town enacted a new zoning ordinance, requiring Sherman to redraft his proposed development plan. When he created a revised proposal in 2004, the Town again enacted new zoning regulations. When he created another revised plan in 2005, the Town changed its zoning laws once more. And again in 2006. And again in 2007.

On top of the shifting sands of zoning regulations, the Town erected even more hurdles. Among other tactics, the Town announced a moratorium on development, replaced its officials, and required Sherman to resubmit studies that he had already completed. When the Town insisted that Sherman pay $25,000 in consultants’ fees before he could obtain a hearing, he might have thought,'The Colonel will just raise it again.' And he would have been right. After paying the $25,000, he was told he owed an additional $40,000, and that he would also have to respond to a lengthy questionnaire.

By the time this lawsuit was filed, over ten years had passed. In that time, Sherman became financially exhausted – forced to spend $5.5 million on top of the original $2.7 million purchase. The District Court (Edgardo Ramos, Judge) ruled that Sherman’s claim under the Takings Clause was not ripe under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), because Sherman had not received a final decision on his property and seeking a final decision would not be futile. The court reasoned that while Sherman may have to jump through more hoops in the future, he had not established that his application would definitely be denied in the end. To Sherman, this must have sounded a lot like: 'Perhaps he won’t raise the number this time.'

We conclude that under these circumstances, Sherman was not required to obtain a final decision from the Town. Sherman’s takings claim was ripe and adequately alleged. Accordingly, we REVERSE that part of the District Court’s decision that dismissed the takings claim, and we REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

The Court concluded that the Williamson decision establishes a two prong test for ripeness of a takings claim that includes a final decision by the state authorities and pursuit of relief in the state courts. First addressing finality, the Court also noted the requirement of finality is"prudential" rather than jurisdictional. Citing several other decisions, the Court stated that a municipality cannot merely throw up one hurdle after another in order to avoid a final determination. In finding that the District Court had used too narrow a test by determining that the Plaintiff had failed to establish that the Town had placed a proverbial brick wall in his path, the Court held:

"This analysis does not account for the nature of the Town’s tactics. The Town will likely never put up a brick wall in between Sherman and the finish line. Rather, the finish line will always be moved just one step away until Sherman collapses. In essence, the Town engaged in a war of attrition with Sherman. Over ten years, Sherman was forced to spend over $5.5 million on top of the original $2.7 million purchase. As a result, he became financially exhausted to the point of facing foreclosure and possible personal bankruptcy. Moreover, at no point could Sherman force the Town to simply give a final 'yay or nay' to his proposal."

The Court therefore concluded:

"Unfortunately, it is no simple task to distinguish procedures that are merely frustrating from those that are unfair or would be futile to pursue. But when the government’s actions are so unreasonable, duplicative, or unjust as to make the conduct farcical, the high standard is met. And it was met in this case. Seeking a final decision would be futile because the Town used – and will in all likelihood continue to use – repetitive and unfair procedures, thereby avoiding a final decision. Sherman is therefore not required to satisfy the first prong of Williamson County."

The Court found that as a result of the procedural history, the second prong of the Williamson test had also been met.

"Under the second prong of Williamson County. a plaintiff's claim is ripe only if the 'plaintiff has sought just compensation by means of an available state procedure.' Dougherty, 282 F.3d at 88.

While Williamson County prevents a plaintiff from bringing his takings claim in federal court before first seeking compensation from the state, it 'does not preclude state courts from hearing simultaneously a plaintiff’s request for compensation under state law and the claim that, in the alternative, the denial of compensation would violate the [Takings Clause of the] Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.' San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and Cnty. of S.F., 545 U.S. 323, 347 (2005). This is because '[r]eading Williamson County to preclude plaintiffs from raising such claims in the alternative would erroneously interpret [the Supreme Court’s] cases as requiring property owners to ‘resort to piecemeal litigation or otherwise unfair procedures.’ Id. (quoting MacDonald, 477 U.S. at 350 n.7).

Sherman first brought suit against the Town in federal court in 2008. The Town argued that the takings claim was unripe in part because Sherman had not alleged that he sought and was denied just compensation by an available state procedure. Sherman voluntarily dismissed the case, and followed San Remo by filing his federal takings claim and his state law claim for compensation in state court. The Town then removed the case from state court to federal court, where it argued once again that the takings claim must be dismissed because it can be heard only in state court under Williamson County.

In Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, 724 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 2013), the Fourth Circuit concluded that when the defendant removes a takings claim to federal court, the state procedures prong of Williamson County does not apply. We agree with that court’s reasoning that 'refusing to apply the state‐litigation requirement in this instance ensures that a state or its political subdivision cannot manipulate litigation to deny a plaintiff a forum for his claim.' Id. at 545.

The removal maneuver prevents Sherman from litigating his federal takings claim until he finishes litigating his state law claim for compensation. In other words, it prevents Sherman from pursuing both claims simultaneously, no matter what forum they are brought in. This runs against San Remo, which allows plaintiffs to do just that. In other words, the removal tactic can 'deny[ ] a plaintiff any forum for having his claim heard,' or at least force the plaintiff into the kind of piecemeal litigation that, under San Remo, cannot be required. See id. at 547."

The Court went on to discuss several other issues, including the Town's claim that the takings claim was barred by the three year statute of limitations. While declining to reach the ultimate issue raised by the Town, the Court held that where the action arises out of the cumulative actions of a government agency, so long as one act occurred within three years of commencing the action the statute of limitation had not run.

-Steven Silverberg

April 5, 2014

Court Reverses Zoning Board Definition of Auditoriun

The Appellate Division overturned a determination by the Albany Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) that found an event at which the audience stands is not a permitted use of an auditorium. In Matter of Albany Basketball & Sports Corp. v. City of Albany, the Court held, since the issue was one of "pure legal interpretation", the determination of the BZA was not entitled to deference.

"The BZA correctly noted that certain dictionaries define an 'auditorium' as 'the area of a concert hall, theatre, school, etc, in which the audience sits' (Harper Collins Online Dictionary, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ auditorium [accessed Feb. 28, 2014] [British English Dictionary]) or as 'the part of a public building where an audience sits' (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/auditorium [accessed Feb. 28, 2014]). Based on these definitions, the BZA determined that petitioner's use of the Armory for a 'Rave' party, nightclub, dance club, or other similar event' was inconsistent with the permitted use of an auditorium, because such events did not provide for 'actual fixed seating.'... However, the BZA ignored alternative definitions of an auditorium — set forth in the same dictionaries it used — as 'a building for public gatherings or meetings' (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/auditorium [accessed Feb. 28, 2014]) or 'a large room or building where people gather to watch a performance, hear a speech, etc.' (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/auditorium [accessed Feb. 28, 2014]), which make no reference to an audience sitting .... Even if petitioner's proposed uses of the Armory are inconsistent with the definitions relied on by the BZA, they are entirely consistent with the commonly used alternative definitions. Resolving, as we must, any ambiguity in favor of petitioner, we conclude that the BZA's determination that the proposed use was impermissible — based solely upon its limited interpretation of the definition of auditorium as requiring fixed seating, to the exclusion of other commonly accepted definitions — was irrational and unreasonable ... and must be annulled.."

-Steven Silverberg