Development

In neighbors' action for an injunction and a declaration that a proposed zoning change was invalid, neighbors appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed and declared the challenged local law invalid for failure to comply with the supermajority requirements of Town Law section 265.

Landowner sought to develop a senior residential community in a district zoned for agricultural use. Landowner initially sought rezoning of its entire parcel, but withdrew that application and submitted a revised application reducing the scope of the project and providing a 100 foot buffer around the property for which it sought rezoning. Landowner made no request to rezone the buffer area, although landowner planned to use the buffer area to provide emergency access and utilities. Neighbors objected to the rezoning, and submitted a petition signed by 90 landowners. Town Law section 265 provides that if the town board receives a written protest signed by owners of 20% or more of land within 100 feet of the land for which a zoning amendment is proposed, the amendment requires approval by at least three-fourths of the members of the board. In this case, neighbors did not meet the 20% requirement if the buffer were not counted as part of the rezoning, but did meet the requirement if the buffer were treated as part of the rezoning. The Town Board approved the proposed rezoning, but not by a three-fourths majority. Neighbors then brought this action contending first that the rezoning constituted impermissible spot zoning and second that the rezoning was invalid because it was not approved by the requisite supermajority. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and neighbors appealed.