Voelckers v. Guelli, 58 N.Y.2d 170 (1983)
When a municipal agency refers a zoning matter to a regional planning board under General Municipal Law § 239-m, both the recommendation and the reasons for that recommendation must be submitted to the referring agency in writing.
Summary
Voelckers sought to rezone a property for an automobile salvage business. The town board referred the application to the county planning board, which recommended rejection via a letter lacking detailed reasons. The reasons were later disclosed orally. When the town board approved the rezoning by a simple majority, the supervisor declared the resolution defeated, arguing a supermajority was needed due to the planning board’s disapproval. The Court of Appeals held that both the recommendation and the reasons must be in writing to be valid under General Municipal Law § 239-m. Because the reasons were not initially provided in writing, the town board could approve the rezoning with a simple majority.
Facts
Petitioner Voelckers, as a contract vendee, applied to the Town of Walworth for rezoning of a 52-acre tract from residential to industrial to operate an automobile salvage business.
The town board referred the proposal to the Wayne County Planning Board as required by General Municipal Law § 239-m.
Within 30 days, the county planning board sent a letter recommending rejection of the proposal but without stating the reasons for the rejection.
Four days later, the county planner orally disclosed the reasons to the town supervisor.
At the town board meeting, a resolution to approve the rezoning passed by a vote of 3-2, a simple majority.
The town supervisor ruled the resolution defeated, asserting that a supermajority was required due to the planning board’s disapproval.
Procedural History
Voelckers initiated an Article 78 proceeding to annul the supervisor’s ruling and declare the rezoning resolution adopted.
Supreme Court granted the petition, holding the planning board’s disapproval ineffective due to the lack of a written statement of reasons.
The Appellate Division affirmed.
The Court of Appeals granted permission to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, although with differing reasoning.
Issue(s)
Whether, under General Municipal Law § 239-m, the statement of reasons for a regional planning board’s recommendation regarding a zoning change must be in writing to be effective.
Holding
Yes, because General Municipal Law § 239-m contemplates that both the report of recommendation and the accompanying statement of reasons of the planning agency be transmitted to the referring municipal agency in written form.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized the importance of the written statement of reasons for informing both the members of the referring body and the residents of the municipality.
The court stated, “Both of these objectives are best served if the views of the planning body are communicated in written form, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of oral relation in the customary informality of the conduct of local affairs.”
The local code also anticipated a written report. The statute requires the supervisor to “read” the report, implying a written document.
The Court distinguished between reviewing the legislative action of zoning and reviewing the procedural determination of the supervisor’s ruling, clarifying that the courts were reviewing the latter, which is permissible. As stated by the court, “what this proceeding brought up for review and what the courts below have examined is the ruling of the supervisor as to the effect of the vote cast by the town board on the rezoning proposal — a procedural determination, but not the substance or content of the action taken by the town board.”
The court rejected the argument that the matter should be referred back to the town board. The court reasoned that the direction to rezone was ministerial because so far as appears, what remains to be done for compliance with the judgment is ministerial conduct only.