Development

Religious Institution's Use Consistent with Zoning Ordinance

Town of Mount Pleasant v. Legion of Christ, Inc.

NYLJ 6/7/06, Court of Appeals

(Opinion by R.S. Smith, J.)

In an action by a town for a judgment declaring that a religious institution's use of the property violates the applicable zoning ordinance, the religious institution appealed from the Appellate Division's reversal of the Supreme Court's determination that its use was consistent with the zoning ordinance and protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutional-ized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Court of Appeals modified to hold that the institution's use was consistent with the zoning ordinance.

The town code permits the use of the subject parcel for 'conference and training facilities.' At the time the ordinance was enacted, the parcel was owned by IBM and used for conferences and training. IBM also rented its facility to other for-profit and not-for-profit enterprises for conference and training purposes, without objection from the town. In 1996, IBM sold the facility to the Legion of Christ, which began using the facility for training its members for the priesthood. The Legion of Christ made few physical changes to the facility, but the trainees often study and live on the property for 2 years, unlike the IBM programs, which lasted a maximum of 6 weeks. The town brought this action, and the Legion defended on two grounds: first, that the zoning code authorized its existing use, and second, the RLUIPA required the town to authorize the Legion's use. Supreme Court held in favor of the Legion on both issues, and the Appellate Division reversed on both issues. The Legion appealed.

In holding that the zoning code authorized the Legion's use of the facility, the Court of Appeals emphasized the similarity between IBM's use of the premises and the Legion's use. The court noted that similar rooms are used for similar purposes, and that nothing in the code implies that only training programs of short duration were to be permitted on the premises. The court could discern only one significant distinction that would matter to the town ' the Legion, unlike IBM, is tax-exempt ' but the court concluded that keeping property in tax-paying hands is not a legitimate purpose of zoning. The court did not address the RLUIPA question, and the court also denied attorneys' fees under RLUIPA, noting that when the town brought the action, RLUIPA had not even been enacted, and the Legion had a dispositive state law defense. As a result, the court held that the Legion could not be considered a prevailing party in a RLUIPA case.

ZBA Bound to Prior Non-Conforming Use Determination

Matter of Palm Management Corp. v. Goldstein

NYLJ 5/22/06, p. 36, col. 2

AppDiv, Second Dept

(memorandum opinion)

In landowner's article 78 proceeding challenging a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) that annulled portions of its certificate of occupancy (CO), landowner appealed from the Supreme Court's denial of the petition. The Appellate Division modified to grant the petition in part, concluding that the ZBA was bound by its earlier determination that landowner was entitled to a CO because its use of the premises constituted a prior non-conforming use.

Landowner operates an inn and restaurant on the premises in East Hampton. In 1987, landowner received a building permit for construction of an awning over a patio on the premises, and in 1989, landowner received a CO that approved use of an existing barn as living quarters for the inn's help. A 1993 CO also approved the awning and the use of the barn as living quarters. By 2000, neighbors had complained, but both the building code enforcer and the ZBA rejected their complaints. The ZBA, in 2001, concluded that the statute of limitations had long run on the neighbors' complaints, in light of the building permit issued for the awning in 1987 and the CO issued for help's quarters in 1989.

In 2003, the village code enforcer issued another CO for the premises, which reiterated the facts relating to the earlier CO, but also recited that the patio was being used as an 'outdoor dining patio.' This time, when neighboring residents appealed to the ZBA, that body agreed with the residents, and annulled the CO authorizing both the outdoor dining use and the dormitory use of the barn. Landowner brought this article 78 proceeding, and Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding, concluding that the ZBA's determination was rational, and that the ZBA was not bound by its earlier determination.

In modifying, the Appellate Division agreed that the ZBA was entitled to annul the CO provision relating to outdoor dining, noting that landowner had never established that outdoor dining was a pre-existing nonconforming use at the time the zoning ordinance was enacted. But the court also held that the ZBA's prior determinations that the barn's use as living quarters was a pre-existing non-conforming use, and that the patio awning was a permitted use, were entitled to res judicata effect with respect to those matters. The court held that those determinations were quasi-judicial, and that the 2001 determination of untimeliness constituted a final determination on the merits, precluding subsequent attack. Hence, the petition should have been granted with respect to those matters.

Religious Institution's Use Consistent with Zoning Ordinance

Town of Mount Pleasant v. Legion of Christ, Inc.

NYLJ 6/7/06, Court of Appeals

(Opinion by R.S. Smith, J.)

In an action by a town for a judgment declaring that a religious institution's use of the property violates the applicable zoning ordinance, the religious institution appealed from the Appellate Division's reversal of the Supreme Court's determination that its use was consistent with the zoning ordinance and protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutional-ized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Court of Appeals modified to hold that the institution's use was consistent with the zoning ordinance.

The town code permits the use of the subject parcel for 'conference and training facilities.' At the time the ordinance was enacted, the parcel was owned by IBM and used for conferences and training. IBM also rented its facility to other for-profit and not-for-profit enterprises for conference and training purposes, without objection from the town. In 1996, IBM sold the facility to the Legion of Christ, which began using the facility for training its members for the priesthood. The Legion of Christ made few physical changes to the facility, but the trainees often study and live on the property for 2 years, unlike the IBM programs, which lasted a maximum of 6 weeks. The town brought this action, and the Legion defended on two grounds: first, that the zoning code authorized its existing use, and second, the RLUIPA required the town to authorize the Legion's use. Supreme Court held in favor of the Legion on both issues, and the Appellate Division reversed on both issues. The Legion appealed.

In holding that the zoning code authorized the Legion's use of the facility, the Court of Appeals emphasized the similarity between IBM's use of the premises and the Legion's use. The court noted that similar rooms are used for similar purposes, and that nothing in the code implies that only training programs of short duration were to be permitted on the premises. The court could discern only one significant distinction that would matter to the town ' the Legion, unlike IBM, is tax-exempt ' but the court concluded that keeping property in tax-paying hands is not a legitimate purpose of zoning. The court did not address the RLUIPA question, and the court also denied attorneys' fees under RLUIPA, noting that when the town brought the action, RLUIPA had not even been enacted, and the Legion had a dispositive state law defense. As a result, the court held that the Legion could not be considered a prevailing party in a RLUIPA case.

ZBA Bound to Prior Non-Conforming Use Determination

Matter of Palm Management Corp. v. Goldstein

NYLJ 5/22/06, p. 36, col. 2

AppDiv, Second Dept

(memorandum opinion)

In landowner's article 78 proceeding challenging a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) that annulled portions of its certificate of occupancy (CO), landowner appealed from the Supreme Court's denial of the petition. The Appellate Division modified to grant the petition in part, concluding that the ZBA was bound by its earlier determination that landowner was entitled to a CO because its use of the premises constituted a prior non-conforming use.

Landowner operates an inn and restaurant on the premises in East Hampton. In 1987, landowner received a building permit for construction of an awning over a patio on the premises, and in 1989, landowner received a CO that approved use of an existing barn as living quarters for the inn's help. A 1993 CO also approved the awning and the use of the barn as living quarters. By 2000, neighbors had complained, but both the building code enforcer and the ZBA rejected their complaints. The ZBA, in 2001, concluded that the statute of limitations had long run on the neighbors' complaints, in light of the building permit issued for the awning in 1987 and the CO issued for help's quarters in 1989.

In 2003, the village code enforcer issued another CO for the premises, which reiterated the facts relating to the earlier CO, but also recited that the patio was being used as an 'outdoor dining patio.' This time, when neighboring residents appealed to the ZBA, that body agreed with the residents, and annulled the CO authorizing both the outdoor dining use and the dormitory use of the barn. Landowner brought this article 78 proceeding, and Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding, concluding that the ZBA's determination was rational, and that the ZBA was not bound by its earlier determination.

In modifying, the Appellate Division agreed that the ZBA was entitled to annul the CO provision relating to outdoor dining, noting that landowner had never established that outdoor dining was a pre-existing nonconforming use at the time the zoning ordinance was enacted. But the court also held that the ZBA's prior determinations that the barn's use as living quarters was a pre-existing non-conforming use, and that the patio awning was a permitted use, were entitled to res judicata effect with respect to those matters. The court held that those determinations were quasi-judicial, and that the 2001 determination of untimeliness constituted a final determination on the merits, precluding subsequent attack. Hence, the petition should have been granted with respect to those matters.