Development

'Class of One' Equal Protection Claim Rejected

Gryphon Development, LLC v. Town of Monroe

NYLJ 12/8/09, p. 31, col. 1

U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y.

(Stein, J.)

In developer's action challenging a town's refusal to extend a sewer district's borders to encompass developer's parcel, both parties sought summary judgment. The court granted the town's motion, concluding that developer had failed to make out a “class of one” equal protection claim.

The town does not own a wastewater treatment plant, and sends wastewater from its two sewer districts to an Orange County plant pursuant to an agreement that limits the amount of wastewater the town can send for processing. Some areas of the town are not in either of the two sewer districts, but on occasion, the town has entered into “outside user agreements” to permit landowners outside the districts to hook into the town's sewer line. Between 2003 and 2004, the town entered into three such agreements. Later in 2004, developer in this case applied for an outside user agreement for a even-lot subdivision, but the town denied the request, relying on a moratorium on such agreements that the town had recently enacted because it was nearing its limit on use of the Orange County plant. Later, developer petitioned the town to extend the boundaries of one of its sewer districts to include developer's parcel, but again, the town denied the petition, relying on its limited treatment capacity. Developer then brought this action, pursuant to 40 USC sec. 1983, contending that the town's denial deprived developer of equal protection.

In awarding summary judgment to the town, the court acknowledged that developer could bring a “class of one” equal protection claim where landowner alleges that it has been intentionally treated differently from other similarly situated and where there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. The court noted, however, that this developer was not similarly situated, because developer applied for an extension to permit a seven-unit subdivision while prior applicants had sought to hook up only a single home to the town sewer line. Furthermore, the court held that the town had a rational basis for treating this developer differently because the town was now in danger of exceeding the limits imposed by its agreement with the county.

Old Filed Map Exception Construed

Matter of Pro Home Builders, Inc. v. Greenfield

NYLJ 11/16/09, p. 36, col. 4

AppDiv, Second Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of the Nassau County Planning Commission that landowner was obligated to file a subdivision map, the planning commission appealed from Supreme Court's grant of the petition to the extent of annulling the determination or, in the alternative, compelling the planning commission to authorize the landowner's proposed subdivision. The Appellate Division modified to delete the provision authorizing the subdivision, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the planning commission's construction of Real Property Law section 334-a(1)(b) was erroneous.

Section 334-a(1)(b) excuses a landowner from filing a new subdivision map when a such a map was filed before 1945, where the proposed alterations to that map would not involve a change of streets, and where the alternations are changes in lot boundaries made to adhere to applicable zoning regulations. Landowner sought to subdivide its current lot, and contended that section 334-a(1)(b) (called the “old filed map exception”) obviated the need for filing a new subdivision map. The county planning commission disagreed, concluding that because landowner's current lot complies with applicable zoning regulations, the “old filed map exception” is inapplicable. Landowner then brought this article 78 proceeding, and Supreme Court granted the petition. The planning commission appealed.

In modifying, the Appellate Division held that the planning commission had erred in focusing on the fact that landowner's current lot complied with the applicable zoning ordinance. Instead, the court held that the planning commission should have focused on whether the lots laid out in the pre-1945 subdivision map complied with the current ordinance. The court held, however, that Supreme Court had improperly concluded that the landowner's subdivision could go forward, because the record did not include sufficient evidence to determine whether the proposed changes in pre-1945 lot lines were necessary to conform to applicable zoning regulations.

COMMENT

Generally, a landowner who seeks to alter a subdivision to comply with subsequently enacted zoning requirements must obtain planning board approval. Town Law ' 276(4) empowers planning boards to review any changes to a previously filed subdivision plat. While Town Law ' 265-a provides developers who have received final subdivision plat approval with a time period during which they are entitled to develop without complying with a newly enacted ordinance, such protection never extends beyond three years. In Freundlich v. Town Board of Southhampton, 73 AD 2d 684, subdivision approval had been granted in 1967, and a subsequent purchaser sought to alter the subdivision to comply with newly enacted zoning changes by reducing the subdivision from 24 plots to 18 plots without seeking planning board approval. The court held that, despite there being a reduction and not an increase in the number of lots, this was a re-subdivision requiring planning board approval because the boundaries of every lot had been redrawn and an entire roadway had been eliminated. Further, because the landowner had not developer during the three-year grace period provided by Town Law ' 265-a, landowner could not claim that obtaining a second subdivision approval would work a hardship. Even if the proposed resubdivision would combine previously approved lots into larger ones without changing any exterior boundary lines., New York cases have held that a planning board has a right to approve or disapprove any changes to a previously filed map. Thus, in Bay View Pines Estates v. Wines, 204 AD2d 316, the court held that a subdivision required planning board review even thought the old lots conformed to the zoning laws when the subdivision map was filed in 1944, and the developer did not seek any changes to any boundaries or lot lines nor the elimination of any streets, but rather, the sought merely to combine smaller adjacent lots into larger buildable parcels. See also Angiollilo v. Town of Greenburgh, 290 AD2d 1.

Real Property Law ' 334-a(1)(b), known as the “old filed map exception” provides a unique protection for Nassau County property owners who would otherwise be required to seek planning board approval for changes to a subdivision plat filed before 1945. The court in Greenfield held that R.P.L. ' 334-a(1)(b) allows the “old filed map exception” to be used when the alterations made to the lot boundaries are solely for the purpose of bringing the lot, as delineated on the old filed subdivision map, into compliance with the current zoning regulations. NY CLS Real P ' 334-a(1)(b). Therefore, if a Nassau County landowner seeks to alter his subdivision to comply with the current zoning laws, he may do so without seeking board approval. However, if the lots, as laid out in a subdivision map filed before 1945, comply with current zoning regulations, then any alterations to the map are subject to the planning board review.

'Class of One' Equal Protection Claim Rejected

Gryphon Development, LLC v. Town of Monroe

NYLJ 12/8/09, p. 31, col. 1

U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y.

(Stein, J.)

In developer's action challenging a town's refusal to extend a sewer district's borders to encompass developer's parcel, both parties sought summary judgment. The court granted the town's motion, concluding that developer had failed to make out a “class of one” equal protection claim.

The town does not own a wastewater treatment plant, and sends wastewater from its two sewer districts to an Orange County plant pursuant to an agreement that limits the amount of wastewater the town can send for processing. Some areas of the town are not in either of the two sewer districts, but on occasion, the town has entered into “outside user agreements” to permit landowners outside the districts to hook into the town's sewer line. Between 2003 and 2004, the town entered into three such agreements. Later in 2004, developer in this case applied for an outside user agreement for a even-lot subdivision, but the town denied the request, relying on a moratorium on such agreements that the town had recently enacted because it was nearing its limit on use of the Orange County plant. Later, developer petitioned the town to extend the boundaries of one of its sewer districts to include developer's parcel, but again, the town denied the petition, relying on its limited treatment capacity. Developer then brought this action, pursuant to 40 USC sec. 1983, contending that the town's denial deprived developer of equal protection.

In awarding summary judgment to the town, the court acknowledged that developer could bring a “class of one” equal protection claim where landowner alleges that it has been intentionally treated differently from other similarly situated and where there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. The court noted, however, that this developer was not similarly situated, because developer applied for an extension to permit a seven-unit subdivision while prior applicants had sought to hook up only a single home to the town sewer line. Furthermore, the court held that the town had a rational basis for treating this developer differently because the town was now in danger of exceeding the limits imposed by its agreement with the county.

Old Filed Map Exception Construed

Matter of Pro Home Builders, Inc. v. Greenfield

NYLJ 11/16/09, p. 36, col. 4

AppDiv, Second Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of the Nassau County Planning Commission that landowner was obligated to file a subdivision map, the planning commission appealed from Supreme Court's grant of the petition to the extent of annulling the determination or, in the alternative, compelling the planning commission to authorize the landowner's proposed subdivision. The Appellate Division modified to delete the provision authorizing the subdivision, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the planning commission's construction of Real Property Law section 334-a(1)(b) was erroneous.

Section 334-a(1)(b) excuses a landowner from filing a new subdivision map when a such a map was filed before 1945, where the proposed alterations to that map would not involve a change of streets, and where the alternations are changes in lot boundaries made to adhere to applicable zoning regulations. Landowner sought to subdivide its current lot, and contended that section 334-a(1)(b) (called the “old filed map exception”) obviated the need for filing a new subdivision map. The county planning commission disagreed, concluding that because landowner's current lot complies with applicable zoning regulations, the “old filed map exception” is inapplicable. Landowner then brought this article 78 proceeding, and Supreme Court granted the petition. The planning commission appealed.

In modifying, the Appellate Division held that the planning commission had erred in focusing on the fact that landowner's current lot complied with the applicable zoning ordinance. Instead, the court held that the planning commission should have focused on whether the lots laid out in the pre-1945 subdivision map complied with the current ordinance. The court held, however, that Supreme Court had improperly concluded that the landowner's subdivision could go forward, because the record did not include sufficient evidence to determine whether the proposed changes in pre-1945 lot lines were necessary to conform to applicable zoning regulations.

COMMENT

Generally, a landowner who seeks to alter a subdivision to comply with subsequently enacted zoning requirements must obtain planning board approval. Town Law ' 276(4) empowers planning boards to review any changes to a previously filed subdivision plat. While Town Law ' 265-a provides developers who have received final subdivision plat approval with a time period during which they are entitled to develop without complying with a newly enacted ordinance, such protection never extends beyond three years. In Freundlich v. Town Board of Southhampton, 73 AD 2d 684, subdivision approval had been granted in 1967, and a subsequent purchaser sought to alter the subdivision to comply with newly enacted zoning changes by reducing the subdivision from 24 plots to 18 plots without seeking planning board approval. The court held that, despite there being a reduction and not an increase in the number of lots, this was a re-subdivision requiring planning board approval because the boundaries of every lot had been redrawn and an entire roadway had been eliminated. Further, because the landowner had not developer during the three-year grace period provided by Town Law ' 265-a, landowner could not claim that obtaining a second subdivision approval would work a hardship. Even if the proposed resubdivision would combine previously approved lots into larger ones without changing any exterior boundary lines., New York cases have held that a planning board has a right to approve or disapprove any changes to a previously filed map. Thus, in Bay View Pines Estates v. Wines, 204 AD2d 316, the court held that a subdivision required planning board review even thought the old lots conformed to the zoning laws when the subdivision map was filed in 1944, and the developer did not seek any changes to any boundaries or lot lines nor the elimination of any streets, but rather, the sought merely to combine smaller adjacent lots into larger buildable parcels. See also Angiollilo v. Town of Greenburgh, 290 AD2d 1.

Real Property Law ' 334-a(1)(b), known as the “old filed map exception” provides a unique protection for Nassau County property owners who would otherwise be required to seek planning board approval for changes to a subdivision plat filed before 1945. The court in Greenfield held that R.P.L. ' 334-a(1)(b) allows the “old filed map exception” to be used when the alterations made to the lot boundaries are solely for the purpose of bringing the lot, as delineated on the old filed subdivision map, into compliance with the current zoning regulations. NY CLS Real P ' 334-a(1)(b). Therefore, if a Nassau County landowner seeks to alter his subdivision to comply with the current zoning laws, he may do so without seeking board approval. However, if the lots, as laid out in a subdivision map filed before 1945, comply with current zoning regulations, then any alterations to the map are subject to the planning board review.