Aloya v. Planning Board of Town of Stony Point, 89 N.Y.2d 339 (1996)
Disapproval of a final subdivision plat application by a Town Planning Board, due to failure to obtain the supermajority vote required to override a negative recommendation from the County Planning Department, constitutes an “action” under Town Law § 276 and automatically extinguishes any prior preliminary plat approval.
Summary
Aloya sought to develop a 45-acre property in Stony Point, NY. After obtaining preliminary plat approval in 1991, their final subdivision application was disapproved in 1994 because they failed to secure the supermajority vote needed to override the Rockland County Planning Department’s negative recommendation. Aloya then submitted another application in 1996, arguing the preliminary approval was still valid and thus exempt from a new building moratorium. The Court of Appeals held that the 1994 disapproval was a valid “action” and terminated the preliminary approval, subjecting the 1996 application to the moratorium. The court reasoned that preliminary approval is contingent on final approval, and its denial renders the preliminary approval invalid.
Facts
Petitioners sought to subdivide a 45-acre property into 27 single-family home lots in Stony Point, NY.
They received unanimous, unconditional preliminary plat approval on December 4, 1991.
On March 1, 1992, they submitted an application for final subdivision plat approval.
The Town Planning Board referred the plan to the Rockland County Planning Department, which recommended disapproval due to insufficient information regarding drainage impacts.
On July 28, 1994, the Board voted on the application; four members voted to approve, one against. Because a “majority plus one” vote was required to override the County’s recommendation, the motion failed, and the application was “turned down.”
In 1996, Aloya submitted a new application. The Board rejected it due to a moratorium on major subdivisions implemented after the initial preliminary approval.
Procedural History
Aloya initially filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing the 1994 vote was not a valid “action” under Town Law § 276, seeking default approval. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
Aloya then filed a second article 78 proceeding challenging the rejection of their 1996 application, arguing the original preliminary approval remained valid. Supreme Court ordered consideration of the application. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the 1994 disapproval terminated the preliminary approval.
The New York Court of Appeals then heard the case.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the Town Planning Board’s rejection of Aloya’s final subdivision application in 1994, due to failure to obtain a supermajority vote, constituted an “action” within the meaning of Town Law § 276.
2. Whether the disapproval of the final subdivision application automatically extinguished the prior preliminary plat approval.
Holding
1. Yes, because the turning down of the final plat application for failure to gain supermajority approval constituted dispositive Board action under the law.
2. Yes, because denial of the final application extinguished prior preliminary approval, subjecting Aloya’s subsequent plans to the moratorium.
Court’s Reasoning
Regarding the first issue, the court analyzed Town Law § 276(6) and General Municipal Law § 239-n(5). While Town Law § 276(6) requires a planning board to “act” on an application, General Municipal Law § 239-n(5) mandates a supermajority vote to override a County Planning Department’s negative recommendation. The court reasoned that permitting default approval under Town Law § 276(8) despite the failure to obtain a supermajority would negate General Municipal Law § 239-n(5) and its legislative purpose.
Regarding the second issue, the court emphasized that preliminary plat approval is “subject to the approval of the plat in final form” as per Town Law § 276(4)(c). The court stated, “Once a final application is denied… the subdivision plan can no longer be approved, rendering preliminary plat approval invalid as the essential contingency — final approval — cannot arise. Thus, by operation of law denial of petitioners’ final plat application itself rescinded the preliminary approval.” The court distinguished Town Law § 276(5)(h), which authorizes revocation of preliminary approval for failure to submit a final application within six months, stating that this provision is applicable *before* a determination on the final application, not after.
The court effectively established that a failed attempt to override a county planning disapproval is a dispositive act, and that preliminary approvals are inherently temporary and extinguished upon final disapproval.