Development

ZBA May Require Church to Establish Need for Driveway

Pine Knolls Alliance Church v. Zoning Board of Appeals

NYLJ 10/21/05, p. 19, col. 5

Court of Appeals

(Opinion by Graffeo. J.)

A church brought an article 78 proceeding challenging a determination by the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) granting a modification of a special use permit permitting the church's expansion, but denying the church's request to construct a second driveway. The ZBA appealed from the Appellate Division's reversal of the Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition. The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the Supreme Court's determination, holding that the ZBA was entitled to rely on the church's failure to establish a need for the second driveway.

The church has operated a house of worship since 1974 pursuant to a special use permit issued by the town. In 2002, the church applied to the ZBA for a modification of the existing permit to permit additions to the main church and youth building, together with a new building for use as a counseling center. The church also sought to relocate and expand the playground and expand the parking lot. Finally, the church sought to build a second driveway about 500 feet north of the existing driveway. The ZBA referred the entire application to the town planning board. Based on a report prepared by an engineering firm hired by the church, the planning board issued a positive recommendation on the project. Meanwhile, neighborhood residents commissioned their own traffic study, which found that the new driveway, which would create a new four-way intersection, would disrupt the residential neighborhood and create conflicts that could result in accidents. Moreover, the neighbors' study also concluded that the new driveway was not necessary because parking lot congestion could be alleviated by widening the existing driveway and engaging in better traffic management techniques.

In April 2003, the ZBA referred the church's proposal to the Saratoga County Planning Board, which generally recommended approval, but suggested that the ZBA require the church to widen the existing access road rather than approving the new access road. The ZBA then conducted a public hearing, and approved every aspect of the church's proposal except for the request to build a second driveway. The ZBA made a number of findings about the impact of the proposed driveway on traffic in the neighborhood, and also noted that the new driveway was unnecessary. The church then brought this article 78 proceeding, contending that the ZBA had improperly required the church to establish a “need” for the access road. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, viewing the denial of permission to build the driveway as a permissible condition on grant of the modified special use permit. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the ZBA was not entitled to require the church to demonstrate a “need” for the additional driveway. The ZBA appealed.

In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the ZBA's determination was the functional equivalent of imposing mitigating conditions on the grant of a permit application. The court emphasized that a ZBA may always impose such mitigating conditions on an educational or religious use, so long as the conditions do not operate indirectly to exclude the religious or educational use. Here, the court concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to establish that the church expansion could be accomplished in a manner that was less intrusive to neighboring properties. As a result, the ZBA's determination should have been upheld.

COMMENT

The Court of Appeals has held that municipalities cannot require educational or religious landowners seeking a special use permit to demonstrate a need to expand. Cornell Univ. v. Bagnardi, 68 NY2d 583, 597. In Cornell Univ., the school sought to relocate one of its programs to an area that permitted educational uses subject to a special permit. The ordinance required a permit applicant to show a need to use the proposed site for the educational use. In an action by Cornell to enjoin the City of Ithaca from interfering with its expansion, the court held that the need requirement could not be applied to Cornell's application and ordered the ZBA to reconsider the application. In the companion case of Matter of Sarah Lawrence Coll. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Sarah Lawrence College sought to expand its student housing into a residential district that permitted college uses by special permit. The Board denied the school's permit application because the school failed to show a need to expand and failed to prove that neighboring property values would not be adversely affected by its proposed use. The Court of Appeals remitted the matter to the ZBA to review the application without considering the school's need to expand. The court stated, however, that in each case the ZBA could consider whether the proposed use would adversely impact the surrounding area and may impose reasonable conditions to mitigate any negative effects. Id.

While reaffirming the rule that municipalities cannot second-guess the expansion needs of a religious institution, Pine Knolls establishes that municipalities can consider alternative means of accommodating those needs when a proposed use would generate significant adverse impact. In assessing whether an expansion could be accomplished in a less intrusive manner, a municipality can weigh the institution's need for a particular aspect of the expansion against the community's needs. Thus, the court concluded that the ZBA had acted within the scope of its powers in balancing the Church's need for the second driveway against the needs of the community. The ZBA's requirement that the Church widen its existing driveway was permissible because it was not so costly or extreme as to undermine the expansion and did not prohibit the religious use. The court distinguished Cornell Univ. in that the Church was not required to prove its need to expand in order to obtain a special permit. Rather, the ZBA only considered the Church's need for the additional driveway in determining that the expansion could be accomplished in a way that would mitigate the negative effects on the surrounding area.

ZBA May Require Church to Establish Need for Driveway

Pine Knolls Alliance Church v. Zoning Board of Appeals

NYLJ 10/21/05, p. 19, col. 5

Court of Appeals

(Opinion by Graffeo. J.)

A church brought an article 78 proceeding challenging a determination by the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) granting a modification of a special use permit permitting the church's expansion, but denying the church's request to construct a second driveway. The ZBA appealed from the Appellate Division's reversal of the Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition. The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the Supreme Court's determination, holding that the ZBA was entitled to rely on the church's failure to establish a need for the second driveway.

The church has operated a house of worship since 1974 pursuant to a special use permit issued by the town. In 2002, the church applied to the ZBA for a modification of the existing permit to permit additions to the main church and youth building, together with a new building for use as a counseling center. The church also sought to relocate and expand the playground and expand the parking lot. Finally, the church sought to build a second driveway about 500 feet north of the existing driveway. The ZBA referred the entire application to the town planning board. Based on a report prepared by an engineering firm hired by the church, the planning board issued a positive recommendation on the project. Meanwhile, neighborhood residents commissioned their own traffic study, which found that the new driveway, which would create a new four-way intersection, would disrupt the residential neighborhood and create conflicts that could result in accidents. Moreover, the neighbors' study also concluded that the new driveway was not necessary because parking lot congestion could be alleviated by widening the existing driveway and engaging in better traffic management techniques.

In April 2003, the ZBA referred the church's proposal to the Saratoga County Planning Board, which generally recommended approval, but suggested that the ZBA require the church to widen the existing access road rather than approving the new access road. The ZBA then conducted a public hearing, and approved every aspect of the church's proposal except for the request to build a second driveway. The ZBA made a number of findings about the impact of the proposed driveway on traffic in the neighborhood, and also noted that the new driveway was unnecessary. The church then brought this article 78 proceeding, contending that the ZBA had improperly required the church to establish a “need” for the access road. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, viewing the denial of permission to build the driveway as a permissible condition on grant of the modified special use permit. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the ZBA was not entitled to require the church to demonstrate a “need” for the additional driveway. The ZBA appealed.

In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the ZBA's determination was the functional equivalent of imposing mitigating conditions on the grant of a permit application. The court emphasized that a ZBA may always impose such mitigating conditions on an educational or religious use, so long as the conditions do not operate indirectly to exclude the religious or educational use. Here, the court concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to establish that the church expansion could be accomplished in a manner that was less intrusive to neighboring properties. As a result, the ZBA's determination should have been upheld.

COMMENT

The Court of Appeals has held that municipalities cannot require educational or religious landowners seeking a special use permit to demonstrate a need to expand. Cornell Univ. v. Bagnardi, 68 NY2d 583, 597. In Cornell Univ., the school sought to relocate one of its programs to an area that permitted educational uses subject to a special permit. The ordinance required a permit applicant to show a need to use the proposed site for the educational use. In an action by Cornell to enjoin the City of Ithaca from interfering with its expansion, the court held that the need requirement could not be applied to Cornell's application and ordered the ZBA to reconsider the application. In the companion case of Matter of Sarah Lawrence Coll. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Sarah Lawrence College sought to expand its student housing into a residential district that permitted college uses by special permit. The Board denied the school's permit application because the school failed to show a need to expand and failed to prove that neighboring property values would not be adversely affected by its proposed use. The Court of Appeals remitted the matter to the ZBA to review the application without considering the school's need to expand. The court stated, however, that in each case the ZBA could consider whether the proposed use would adversely impact the surrounding area and may impose reasonable conditions to mitigate any negative effects. Id.

While reaffirming the rule that municipalities cannot second-guess the expansion needs of a religious institution, Pine Knolls establishes that municipalities can consider alternative means of accommodating those needs when a proposed use would generate significant adverse impact. In assessing whether an expansion could be accomplished in a less intrusive manner, a municipality can weigh the institution's need for a particular aspect of the expansion against the community's needs. Thus, the court concluded that the ZBA had acted within the scope of its powers in balancing the Church's need for the second driveway against the needs of the community. The ZBA's requirement that the Church widen its existing driveway was permissible because it was not so costly or extreme as to undermine the expansion and did not prohibit the religious use. The court distinguished Cornell Univ. in that the Church was not required to prove its need to expand in order to obtain a special permit. Rather, the ZBA only considered the Church's need for the additional driveway in determining that the expansion could be accomplished in a way that would mitigate the negative effects on the surrounding area.