Articles Posted in Zoning and Land Use Law

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 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.

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

In a case where the claim is the Not For Profit Corporation Law Article 15 (cemetery law) preempts local zoning, the Appellate Division held a local prohibition on crematories was not invalid. In Matter of Oakwood Cemetery v. Village/Town of Mt Kisco, the local cemetery claimed that a new zoning provision that prohibited a crematory could not be enforced as it was inconsistent with provisions of the Not for Profit Corporation Law that include crematories within the definition of cemetery.

In dismissing the claim, the Court found:

“although Not-for-Profit Corporation Law article 15 governs the operation of corporations which own and manage cemeteries, it does not expressly preempt zoning ordinances relating to land use by cemeteries. Further, there is no declaration of State policy in either Not-for-Profit Corporation Law article 15 or the rules and regulations promulgated under it that evinces any such intent…The Supreme Court properly determined that Not-for-Profit Corporation Law § 1502(d) does not invalidate the Village’s more restrictive definition of “cemetery” under the doctrine of conflict preemption. The Not-for-Profit Corporation Law is addressed to the management of cemetery corporations, and the definition contained in the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law addresses the scope of that law. By contrast, the Village Code’s definition of “cemetery,” which excludes crematories, is addressed to land use, which is another matter entirely. Since the differing definitions of “cemetery” are addressed to differing purposes, they are not in direct conflict…”

The Appellate Division Second Department concluded that a conditional site plan approval, without more, was insufficient to create vested rights in the prior zoning of a parcel. In Matter of Exeter Building Corp. v. Town of Newburgh, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court holding that the Newburgh Zoning Board was incorrect in determining the property owner had no vested rights.

While the property owner was processing its application, obtaining a subdivision and conditional approval of a site plan that required a compliance with a number of conditions, the property was rezoned. In an earlier litigation, it was determined that because part of the property owner’s application process included a subdivision the property had the benefit of Town Law § 265-a, which grants a three year exemption from a rezoning for property that has been subdivided. During that three year period a single family home on the property and water tanks were removed, there was some grading and clearing done and a sign announcing the availability of town homes on the site was erected, pursuant to permits. However, all the conditions to the site plan were not fulfilled and the chair of the planning board was not authorized to sign the site plan until all of the conditions were fulfilled.

Upon the expiration of the three year exemption period, the property owner sought a declaration from the ZBA that it had vested rights. The ZBA disagreed and this lawsuit ensued.

An appellate court held that a restriction on the height of buildings fixed by a zoning board of appeals did not survive a later change of zoning for the parcel at issue. In Matter of Livingston Parkway Assn., Inc. v. Town of Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals, the Third Department held: ” the language of Condition No. 4 specifically and unambiguously applied the height restriction only to new buildings proposed by a developer in June 1968. That development never came to fruition, and the subject parcel was rezoned in 1976. We therefore conclude that the Amherst Town Board annulled Condition No. 4 when it rezoned the property in 1976 (cf. Matter of D’Angelo v Di Bernardo, 106 Misc 2d 735, 737, affd 79 AD2d 1092, lv denied 53 NY2d 606).”

The Petitioner in the case had claimed that a saving clause in the amendment that stated prior regulations of the Town survived the amendment meant that the ZBA condition on height also survived, In rejecting that argument the Court noted that a condition fixed by a zoning board is not a Town regulation.

The Court also rejected the Petitioner’s argument that the ZBA decision, holding the prior height restriction no longer applied, was fatally defective for failure to make findings of fact. The Court noted that, while generally findings of fact are required to permit intelligent judicial review, when there is a pure question of law:

The Appellate Division upheld a Zoning Board’s denial of a use variance to extend a ski lift over a currently unused parcel. In Matter of Holimont, Inc. v Village of Ellicottville Zoning Board of Appeals, et.al. the Court noted that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for obtaining a use variance. Although, the applicant submitted expert evidence on the issue of why it could not obtain a reasonable return without the use variance, the Court held:

“…the “sole province of the ZBA . . . as administrative factfinder” to resolve issues of credibility (Matter of Supkis v Town of Sand Lake Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 227 AD2d 779, 781). Additionally, petitioner failed to establish that its proposed development would not alter the essential character of the surrounding neighborhood (see Matter of Genser v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 65 AD3d 1144, 1147). Indeed, the record establishes that permitting petitioner to maintain an active ski lift and snowmaking equipment on its parcel will alter the quiet residential area surrounded by nature in which that parcel is located because of the increased use of the parcel. Finally, the record establishes that petitioner’s hardship was self-created inasmuch as petitioner previously had stipulated to restrictions calling for an “undisturbed green area” in the location petitioner now seeks to develop…”

-Steven Silverberg

The Appellate division determined that mere proximity of a neighborhood access road was not sufficient to create standing for individuals who reside 1,300 to 2,000 feet from a proposed regional mall. In Matter of Riverhead Neighborhood Preservation Coalition v. Town of Riverhead Town Board, a local neighborhood association challenged the site plan approval for a regional mall that would have its main entrance directly across from the access road that serviced a specific neighborhood that included members of the group challenging the site plan approval. Noting that the standing of the association was dependent on whether individual members of the association would have had standing on their own, the Court held:

“Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that they lacked standing. ” [I]n land use matters . . . the plaintiff[s], for standing purposes, must show that [they] would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large'” …Here, the individual petitioners, none of whom allege that the site of the proposed mall is visible from their homes, do not live close enough to the site to be afforded a presumption of injury-in-fact based on proximity alone (see Matter of Finger Lakes Zero Waste Coalition, Inc. v Martens, 95 AD3d 1420, 1421-1422; Matter of Harris v Town Bd. of Town of Riverhead, 73 AD3d 922, 924; Matter of East End Prop. Co. # 1, LLC v Town Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 56 AD3d 773, 777-778; Matter of Long Is. Contractors’ Assn. v Town of Riverhead, 17 AD3d 590, 595). Further, the individual petitioners’ allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that the construction of the proposed mall would cause them to suffer an environmental injury different from that of members of the public at large, who use Fairway Drive for access, inter alia, to a golf course….”

-Steven Silverberg

The Appellate Division found multiple extensions of a grandfather clause that permitted a specific development to proceed to final approval, despite local regulations that would have otherwise prevented it, is consistent with the Town’s comprehensive plan. In Matter of Birchwood Neighborhood Association v. Planning Board of the Town of Colonie, the Court noted that legislative acts carry a presumption of validity.

“Petitioners primarily argue that the repeated renewals of the first grandfathering provision were unlawful because they did not comport with the Town’s comprehensive plan, rendering approval of the developer’s subdivision plan invalid. We disagree. “A town’s zoning determination is entitled to a strong presumption of validity; therefore, one who challenges such a determination bears a heavy burden of demonstrating, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt, that the determination was arbitrary and unreasonable or otherwise unlawful'” (Matter of Bergami v Town Bd. of the Town of Rotterdam, 97 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2012], quoting Matter of Rotterdam Ventures, Inc. v Town Bd. of the Town of Rotterdam, 90 AD3d 1360, 1361-1362 [2011]; see Asian Ams. for Equality v Koch, 72 NY2d 121, 131 [1988]). While “[z]oning laws must be [*3]enacted in accordance with a comprehensive land use plan” (Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v Town of Brookhaven, 21 NY3d 729, ___, 2013 NY Slip Op 07513, *2 n 1 [2013]; see Town Law § 263), to establish compliance, “respondents need only show that the zoning amendment was adopted for ‘a legitimate governmental purpose'” and the amendment will not be considered arbitrary unless “‘there is no reasonable relation between the end sought to be achieved by the regulation and the means used to achieve that end'” (Matter of Rossi v Town Bd. of Town of Ballston, 49 AD3d 1138, 1144 [2008], quoting Fred F. French Inv. Co. v City of New York, 39 NY2d 587, 596 [1976], appeal dismissed, cert denied 429 US 990 [1976]).”

In this case, the application at issue was initially submitted in 2002. Thereafter, the Town adopted a comprehensive plan in 2007 and provided for a conservation overlay zone. It also grandfathered any inconsistent application that had already received concept approval, so long as it met certain deadlines for final approval. The deadline was subsequently extended several times by local law allowing the development at issue to receive final approval. The Court found that allowing the particular development to proceed, despite enactment of zoning provisions that would have limited such development, was reasonable under the circumstances.