Articles Posted in Zoning and Land Use Law

A Planning Board is not required to make a determination regarding a fee in lieu of parkland at the time of preliminary subdivision approval but may wait until it grants final subdivision approval. In the Matter of Davies Farms LLC v. Planning Board of the Town of Clarkstown, the Appellate Division Second Department found that Town Law sections 276 and 277 do not preclude a determination at the time of final subdivision approval that such a fee should be paid, even though there was no determination of recreational need at the time of preliminary subdivision approval.

Planning Boards are authorized to make a determination, under appropriate circumstances, that developers should dedicate parkland for recreational purposes or that the developer should pay a fee in lieu of dedicating parkland. The court found that the practice of the particular planning board to make such determination at the time of final approval, rather than preliminary approval, is not arbitrary and capricious. The decision was also influenced by the fact that the applicant was told prior to preliminary approval that a fee would be fixed and that the same procedure was followed for a nearby development by the same applicant.

Reiterating that “vested rights cannot be acquired in reliance upon an invalid permit” the Appellate Division of the First Department upheld a determination of the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (“BSA”) in the case In re GRA, LLC v. Srinivasan.

The petitioner owned property in the R6 district which initially permitted buildings of up to 12 stories. The neighborhood consists of mostly one and two family homes. As a result of petitioners proposed project the neighbors lobbied for a rezoning to prohibit such construction. As the court noted “a race ensued” to see whether petitioner could complete enough of the building to obtain vested rights under the existing zoning before the rezoning took effect. Initially it appeared the petitioner had won the race as it was able to complete enough of the foundation to obtain a vested right to complete the building under the old zoning.

However apparently in an effort to save time and win the race petitioner used a “Sanborn Map” stamped by his architect as accurate, as opposed to a survey as required by regulations. It turned out the map was inaccurate and as a result the foundation was placed closer to the property line than is permitted under the regulations. When the petitioner produced an actual survey this error was confirmed. The department of buildings therefore rejected the claim by petitioner of vested rights to complete the building under the old zoning based upon percentage of completion of the structure before the new zoning went into effect.

In a recent decision by the Appellate Division Second Department that Court again reminded litigants that variances run with the land and zoning boards can only place conditions on variances that relate to the property involved and the purpose of zoning. In Fowlkes v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead the Court went through the usual balancing test and found that the zoning board had, despite certain conclusory findings, “appropriately considered the other statutory factors and concluded that the detriment to the neighborhood outweighed the benefit to the petitioner.”

However, the petitioner apparently also argued that a balance could be struck in her favor if the variances sought were limited to her term of ownership. In rejecting that argument the Court pointed out: “any condition imposed when granting a variance must be directly related to the property involved and to the underlying purpose of the zoning code, without consideration of the particular person owning or occupying it….”

In upholding the decision of a zoning board denying an area variance, the Appellate Division in Fowlkes v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead noted that the variance could not have been limited in time to the term of ownership of the present applicant. Instead the Court noted: “the variances could not be limited to the term of her ownership of the premises because any condition imposed when granting a variance must be directly related to the property involved and to the underlying purpose of the zoning code, without consideration of the particular person owning or occupying it.”

This week the Appellate Division, Second Department reiterated the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the importance of a clear record in the proceedings of zoning boards. In Matter of Kaufman v Incorporated Village of Kings Point, the building inspector had determined that the lot in question had the required lot area but lacked sufficient lot width and lot frontage. The property owners applied to the zoning board for the necessary variances, which was opposed by neighbors. Based largely on a statement by the Village attorney that similar applications had been granted in the past, the zoning board granted the application.

The neighbors brought an Article 78 proceeding challenging the variances and for the first time claimed that the lot in question did not have the required lot area. In modifying the decision of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division held this issue should not have been considered as it was neither a question of law nor “apparent from the face of the record.” The Court noted that in an Article 78 proceeding the court’s review is “limited to the arguments and record adduced before the agency” and that a litigant is require to exhaust all possible relief through administrative review before resorting to the courts.

However the Court still remitted the case to the zoning board noting that it was not clear from the record that the zoning board had considered the five factor balancing test required by Village Law section 7-712 (b) in granting the variances. Further, on the contention that the zoning board was compelled to follow its precedent in granting similar variances, the Court found: “other than the conclusory statement from the Village Attorney, it was never established that applications for area variances involving similar factual circumstances had been granted in the past….”

A zoning amendment which permitted hot mix asphalt facilities as a special use in all industrial districts in the Town of Babylon was held not to be spot zoning by the Appellate Division this week. In the case, Matter of Little Joseph Realty, Inc. v Town Board of the Town of Babylon, the court found the amendment was not enacted to benefit a single owner for a specific purpose only.

The Court noted that spot zoning is “the process of singling out a small parcel of land, for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners.” In affirming the decision of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division found that the lower court had correctly determined that “the zoning amendments did not allow for a use that was different from that allowed in the surrounding area and was in conformity with the comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community.”

The Appellate Division, Second Department rejected as unreasonable a condition on an area variance that a parking lot be chained at night to prevent overnight parking. In Matter of Voetsch v. Craven the petitioner sought area variances for a parking lot adjacent to a professional office.

The Zoning Board denied a variance for a 4 foot stockade fence but granted the other area variances for the parking lot, contingent upon petitioner putting a chain at the entrance at night to prevent overnight parking on the lot when the offices were not open. The Court upheld the denial of the stockade fence but reversed that portion of the decision which required the chain across the lot at night to prevent parking.

The Court noted that a zoning board may impose reasonable conditions “directly related to and incidental to the proposed use” but that unreasonable conditions must be annulled. The court found that a condition preventing overnight parking was reasonable to minimize adverse impacts on the neighborhood. However, it held “there was no such rational basis” for also having to chain the parking lot. The decision is silent as to why the court found this condition unreasonable. This writer suspects that other parking lots in the town are not required to be chained to prevent overnight parking and that this was a unique requirement for this specific property.

In upholding the rejection of a draft environmental impact statement submitted pursuant to SEQRA, the appellate division reiterated the long standing rule that when a zoning law is amended, after submission of an application and before a decision, the courts must apply the new law and there is no vested right in development under the old law. In Matter of Jul-Bet Enterprises, LLC v. Town Board of Town of Riverhead, the Appellate Division Second Department also noted that the failure to act, as required, within 45 days of submission of the DEIS did not constitute an automatic acceptance of the DEIS.

Last week the Appellate Division Second Department reversed and remitted for retrial a 42 USC 1983 regulatory takings claim in the case Noghrey v. Town of Brookhaven. Plaintiff had purchased 2 parcels in 1985 that were zoned for shopping plazas with the intention of building shopping plazas. After adopting a moratorium to study the zoning of these parcels and others, the Town rezoned plaintiff’s property to residential use. Plaintiff then brought a regulatory takings claim. A trial was held and the jury found a partial taking based upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Penn. Cent. Transportation v. City of New York.

The Appellate Division reversed and remanded the case for a new trial finding that the jury charge on the takings issue was inadequate. The Court stated that for there to be even a partial taking, the diminution in value must be “one step short of complete.” Noting that courts have rejected cases where the diminution in value even “approached or exceeded 90% of the pre-regulation value” the Court found the trial court failed to explain to the jury the true standard to be applied.

In remitting the case the Court ordered a new trial and directed that the trial court instruct the jury that “mere diminution in value” is not adequate to prove a taking. Rather the jury should be instructed that the test is whether the regulation has left only a “bare residue” of economic value.