Development

Zoning Amendment Annulled For Failure to Make Requisite Findings

Matter of Loudon House LLC v. Town of Colonie

NYLJ 1/13/15, p. 21, col.1

AppDiv, Third Dept.

(Opinion by Clark, J.)

In a combined article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action challenging enactment of a zoning amendment, landowner appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition and declaration that the ordinance was valid. The Appellate Division modified to annul the amendment, but affirmed Supreme Court's dismissal of landowner's claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Until 2007, landowner's parcel was located in a single family zoning district. In that year, at landowner's request, the town rezoned landowner's parcel to a planned development district, and authorized landowner's development, so long as the development was limited to a single building with no more than 24 residential units. Landowner obtained a building permit and started construction in 2008. When financing evaporated, construction ground to a halt. Neighbors were upset at the incomplete building, and the town board reacted in 2012 by enacting a new local law restoring the single-family designation that had applied before 2007. Landowner then brought this article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action challenging the rezoning. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding and declared the local law valid.

In modifying, the Appellate Division focused on procedural defects in the town board's action. In particular, the town code permits the town board to rescind a planned development district designation under the circumstances listed in the code. The town board did not rely on that provision when it enacted the zoning amendment, although in this proceeding, it contends that the facts of the case would have permitted the board to rescind under the code provision. The court held that it would review the board's determination only on the grounds relied upon by the board, and the court held that the board acted arbitrarily in rescinding the planned development district designation without making the findings required by the code. The court then turned to landowner's damage claim, and rejected the argument that the town board's action rose to the level of a constitutional violation. The court did not find the egregious conduct that would be necessary to support a due process violation, and did not establish facts to support an equal protection claim.

'

Zoning Amendment Annulled For Failure to Make Requisite Findings

Matter of Loudon House LLC v. Town of Colonie

NYLJ 1/13/15, p. 21, col.1

AppDiv, Third Dept.

(Opinion by Clark, J.)

In a combined article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action challenging enactment of a zoning amendment, landowner appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition and declaration that the ordinance was valid. The Appellate Division modified to annul the amendment, but affirmed Supreme Court's dismissal of landowner's claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Until 2007, landowner's parcel was located in a single family zoning district. In that year, at landowner's request, the town rezoned landowner's parcel to a planned development district, and authorized landowner's development, so long as the development was limited to a single building with no more than 24 residential units. Landowner obtained a building permit and started construction in 2008. When financing evaporated, construction ground to a halt. Neighbors were upset at the incomplete building, and the town board reacted in 2012 by enacting a new local law restoring the single-family designation that had applied before 2007. Landowner then brought this article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action challenging the rezoning. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding and declared the local law valid.

In modifying, the Appellate Division focused on procedural defects in the town board's action. In particular, the town code permits the town board to rescind a planned development district designation under the circumstances listed in the code. The town board did not rely on that provision when it enacted the zoning amendment, although in this proceeding, it contends that the facts of the case would have permitted the board to rescind under the code provision. The court held that it would review the board's determination only on the grounds relied upon by the board, and the court held that the board acted arbitrarily in rescinding the planned development district designation without making the findings required by the code. The court then turned to landowner's damage claim, and rejected the argument that the town board's action rose to the level of a constitutional violation. The court did not find the egregious conduct that would be necessary to support a due process violation, and did not establish facts to support an equal protection claim.

'