New York Law Review

Tag: Town of Brookhaven

  • Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v. Town of Brookhaven, 22 N.Y.3d 730 (2014): Applying the ‘Special Facts’ Exception in Land Use Cases

    Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v. Town of Brookhaven, 22 N.Y.3d 730 (2014)

    A landowner seeking to avoid the application of current zoning laws based on the ‘special facts’ exception must demonstrate both entitlement to the requested land use permit as a matter of right under the prior zoning law and that the municipality acted in bad faith, engaged in unjustifiable actions, or abused administrative procedures.

    Summary

    Rocky Point sought to develop a Lowe’s Home Improvement Center on its property in Brookhaven. After numerous attempts by the Town to rezone the property to a classification that would prohibit the development, Rocky Point argued that its site plan application should be reviewed under the prior, more favorable zoning provision, citing the ‘special facts’ exception. The Court of Appeals held that Rocky Point failed to meet the exception’s requirements. Specifically, Rocky Point was not entitled to the permit as a matter of right under the previous zoning law, and the Town’s actions did not constitute bad faith or abuse of administrative procedures. Therefore, the current zoning law applied.

    Facts

    Rocky Point owned land in Brookhaven previously used as a drive-in theater and golf range, uses that became nonconforming under a new “commercial recreation” (CR) zoning classification in 1997. The property was initially zoned “J Business 2” (J-2), which permitted retail stores but not “commercial centers” exceeding five acres. Rocky Point (and its predecessor) repeatedly sought approval to build a Lowe’s Center, a commercial center exceeding five acres. The Town attempted multiple times to rezone the property to CR, but faced legal challenges. Rocky Point argued the Town selectively enforced zoning requirements against it. Rocky Point’s site plan application did not comply with the J-2 zoning requirements because the proposed Lowe’s Center exceeded the acreage limit for commercial centers.

    Procedural History

    Sans Argent, Rocky Point’s predecessor, initially sued the Town after its rezoning efforts failed. Supreme Court initially declared the Town’s rezoning invalid twice. Rocky Point then filed the instant action seeking a declaration that its application was subject to the old J-2 zoning due to the Town’s delays. Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the Town, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding triable issues of fact. After a non-jury trial, Supreme Court found for Rocky Point, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the determinations unsupported by evidence. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the ‘special facts’ exception to the general rule that a case must be decided based on the law as it exists at the time of the decision applies, such that Rocky Point’s site plan application should be reviewed under the previous J-2 zoning classification.

    Holding

    No, because Rocky Point failed to demonstrate entitlement to the requested land use permit as a matter of right under the J-2 zoning classification and failed to show that the Town acted in bad faith, engaged in unjustifiable actions, or abused administrative procedures.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court applied the general rule that land use cases are decided based on the law in effect when the application is decided. However, the “special facts” exception applies if the landowner establishes entitlement to the underlying land use application as a matter of right and demonstrates “extensive delay indicative of bad faith,” “unjustifiable actions” by municipal officials, or “abuse of administrative procedures.” The Court found that Rocky Point did not meet the threshold requirement of entitlement to the permit as a matter of right because the proposed Lowe’s Center exceeded the acreage limit for commercial centers under the J-2 zoning. The Court rejected Rocky Point’s argument that the Town selectively enforced the zoning requirements, agreeing with the Appellate Division that Rocky Point failed to provide sufficient factual support for this claim. The Court stated, “[t]he record clearly demonstrates that similarly situated applicants referred to by Rocky Point were not similarly situated at all; they either fell within an exception or were within compliance with the J-2 zoning classification.” The Court also clarified that even under a negligence standard, the special facts exception would not apply because Rocky Point could not meet the initial zoning requirements. Because Rocky Point failed to meet the threshold requirement of entitlement as of right, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

  • Suffolk Housing Services v. Town of Brookhaven, 70 N.Y.2d 122 (1987): Judicial Deference to Zoning Implementation Absent Proof of Exclusion

    Suffolk Housing Services v. Town of Brookhaven, 70 N.Y.2d 122 (1987)

    A court will not invalidate a town’s zoning ordinance implementation based on a failure to provide low-cost housing unless there is proof that the town’s actions, rather than external economic factors, caused the housing shortage.

    Summary

    Suffolk Housing Services sued the Town of Brookhaven, claiming the town’s zoning ordinance, as implemented, discouraged the development of low-cost housing. The plaintiffs argued the town’s special permit requirements for multifamily dwellings and failure to pre-map areas for such housing inflated costs and faced community opposition, effectively excluding low-income residents. The lower courts upheld the ordinance. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the town’s actions caused the housing shortage, as developer reluctance due to economic factors was a significant contributing factor. The court declined to undertake legislative rezoning, emphasizing the judiciary’s limited role in land use decisions.

    Facts

    Plaintiffs alleged a critical need for low-cost, multifamily rental housing in the Town of Brookhaven. The Town’s zoning ordinance required developers to obtain a special permit to construct any housing other than single-family dwellings. Developers could apply for permission to “cluster” developments in single-family residential districts or apply for rezoning to multifamily districts. Plaintiffs claimed the Town’s failure to “pre-map” vacant land for multifamily housing inflated costs and led to project failures due to community opposition. They asserted the Town actively discouraged low-income housing through its implementation of the ordinance.

    Procedural History

    Plaintiffs initially sued in a lower court, seeking to invalidate the Town of Brookhaven’s zoning ordinance and compel affirmative action to address the perceived housing shortage. The lower court ruled in favor of the Town, upholding the validity of the zoning ordinance. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The plaintiffs then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Town of Brookhaven’s implementation of its zoning ordinance illegally excluded low-income housing development, justifying judicial intervention to rezone the town.

    Holding

    No, because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the town’s actions, rather than external economic factors, caused the claimed shortage of low-cost housing.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that a town’s zoning power is derived from the state and must promote the community’s health, safety, morals, or general welfare. While municipalities cannot use zoning to effectuate socioeconomic or racial discrimination, the court’s review is limited by affirmed factual findings. Both lower courts found that numerous developer applications for multifamily and subsidized housing were approved despite the special permit procedures. The court highlighted the affirmed findings that a significant reason for inadequate development was the lack of willing developers due to rising construction and financing costs and economic stagnation. The court stated, “Plaintiffs, in sum, have failed to demonstrate that efforts by the Town caused the claimed shortage of shelter.” The court distinguished this case from Berenson v. Town of New Castle, where the facial validity of a zoning ordinance was challenged. Here, the challenge was to the implementation, and the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient proof of exclusionary practices. The court declined to undertake legislative rezoning, stating, “Zoning…is an essentially legislative task, and it is therefore anomalous that courts should be required to perform the tasks of a regional planner”. The court emphasized the need for a particularized claim directed at a specific parcel of land, plan, or project for housing. The court noted the abstract character of the case and the relief sought, while reaffirming that the decision “should not be read as revealing hostility to breaking down even unconstitutional zoning barriers that frustrate the deep human yearning of low-income and minority groups for decent housing they can afford in decent surroundings”.

  • Preble Aggregate Inc. v. Town of Brookhaven, 43 N.Y.2d 1002 (1978): Zoning Board Approval Prevents Planning Board Disapproval

    Preble Aggregate Inc. v. Town of Brookhaven, 43 N.Y.2d 1002 (1978)

    When a zoning board of appeals approves a special use permit determining that a proposed use complies with the town code, the planning board lacks the authority to disapprove a site plan based on a violation of the same town code.

    Summary

    Preble Aggregate obtained a special use permit from the Brookhaven Zoning Board of Appeals to operate an automobile shredder plant. The Brookhaven Planning Board subsequently disapproved Preble’s site plan, arguing the proposed use violated the Brookhaven Town Code. The New York Court of Appeals held that because the Zoning Board had already determined the use was compliant with the Town Code when issuing the special use permit, the Planning Board lacked the authority to disapprove the site plan based on the same code violations. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the Supreme Court’s judgment.

    Facts

    Brookhaven Zoning Board of Appeals issued a special use permit to Preble Aggregate Inc. to operate an automobile shredder plant.
    The Brookhaven Planning Board subsequently disapproved Preble’s site plan.
    The Planning Board’s disapproval was based on the argument that Preble’s proposed use violated the Brookhaven Town Code.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially ruled in favor of Preble Aggregate.
    The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, but the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the Supreme Court’s judgment.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Brookhaven Planning Board had the authority to disapprove Preble Aggregate’s site plan based on violations of the Brookhaven Town Code, after the Zoning Board of Appeals had already issued a special use permit determining the use complied with the same code.

    Holding

    Yes, because the Brookhaven Zoning Board of Appeals had already approved the proposed use by issuing a special use permit and determining the use was in compliance with the Brookhaven Town Code, the Brookhaven Planning Board was without power to disapprove the site plan on the grounds that the use violated the Brookhaven Town Code.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that once the Zoning Board of Appeals, the body authorized to determine compliance with the Brookhaven Town Code for special use permits, had already deemed the proposed use compliant, the Planning Board could not subsequently disapprove the site plan based on the same code violations. The court relied on Brookhaven Town Code, § 85-160A and 2 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning [4th ed], § 30.04. The court stated: “The Brookhaven Zoning Board of Appeals, having issued petitioner a special use permit to operate an automobile shredder plant, determined that petitioner’s proposed use was in compliance with the Brookhaven Town Code. The use being so approved, the Brookhaven Planning Board was without power to disapprove petitioner’s site plan on the ground that petitioner’s use violated the Brookhaven Town Code.” The court also noted that the validity of the special use permit itself was not challenged in a separate proceeding and thus was not properly before the court. The dissenting judges agreed with the Appellate Division’s analysis and disposition, emphasizing the importance of upholding the stipulation of judgment absolute.