Tag: Putnam Armonk, Inc.

  • Putnam Armonk, Inc. v. Village of Ocean Beach, 45 N.Y.2d 732 (1978): The Special Facts Exception to Zoning Law Amendments

    Putnam Armonk, Inc. v. Village of Ocean Beach, 45 N.Y.2d 732 (1978)

    A property owner is entitled to a building permit if the application complies with existing zoning regulations at the time of submission, and the municipality’s unjustifiable delay in processing the application should not allow a subsequent zoning amendment to defeat the owner’s right to the permit.

    Summary

    Putnam Armonk, Inc. sought a building permit in the Village of Ocean Beach to expand his dwelling. The Village repeatedly delayed processing the application and ultimately denied it based on a zoning amendment enacted after the application was submitted but before it was decided. The New York Court of Appeals held that the “special facts exception” applied because the Village officials used dilatory tactics, presenting unsatisfactory reasons for the denial, and acted arbitrarily in an attempt to deny Putnam Armonk his right to expand his property. Therefore, the Court ordered the building permit to be issued.

    Facts

    Putnam Armonk, Inc. owned property in the Village of Ocean Beach with a four-bedroom dwelling. On September 28, 1972, he applied for a building permit to add two bedrooms, a bath, and a den. The application was rejected due to prior zoning violations. A revised application was submitted on March 28, 1973, seeking to add one bedroom, a bath, a den, and a deck. The Village officials delayed acting on the application, leading to an Article 78 proceeding compelling them to act. The building inspector finally denied the application on March 9, 1974. The Village then amended the zoning ordinance on May 4, 1974, limiting one-family dwellings to four bedrooms, effective May 19, 1974.

    Procedural History

    Putnam Armonk initially commenced an Article 78 proceeding to compel the building inspector to act on his application, which was granted by the Supreme Court. After the building inspector denied the application, Putnam Armonk appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which also denied the application, citing prior zoning violations and the new four-bedroom limit. Special Term annulled the Board’s decision and ordered the permit’s issuance. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the amended zoning ordinance was controlling. Putnam Armonk then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the “special facts exception” applies, preventing the retroactive application of a zoning amendment enacted after a building permit application was filed, where the municipality engaged in dilatory tactics and the applicant complied with existing zoning regulations at the time of application.

    Holding

    Yes, because Putnam Armonk complied with all zoning requirements when he submitted his application, and the Village officials engaged in unjustifiable delays and arbitrary actions to deny the permit.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals recognized the general rule that a case must be decided based on the law as it exists at the time of the decision. However, the Court invoked the “special facts exception,” which prevents the application of a zoning amendment if the permit should have been granted before the amendment’s enactment. The court stated that “This administrative procrastination, calculated to deny a property owner his right to use this land in a currently lawful manner, is supportable neither by law nor by sound and ethical practice”. The building inspector admitted that the application complied with all zoning regulations when submitted. The Court emphasized the Village’s dilatory tactics, including refusing to act on the application, delaying action after being compelled by court order, and relying on improper grounds for denial (prior violations and personal reasons). The Court found these actions arbitrary and designed to frustrate Putnam Armonk’s right to a building permit. As a result, the Court held that the zoning amendment should not apply and ordered the permit to be issued. The Court reasoned that, absent the Village’s improper delays, Putnam Armonk would have acquired a vested right to the permit before the amendment took effect.