Opinion
No. 63734.
01-31-2017
Randolph BARTZ, Jane Bickett, Candace Dower, David Boyce, Robert Boyce, Elizabeth Boyce, Joseph Condidorio, John Green, Joseph McKay, Stephen Moulton, and Ronald Paganin, Petitioners–Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF LEROY, Zoning Board of Appeals of Leroy, Jeffery Steinbrenner, Code Enforcement Officer, Daniel Lang, Code Enforcement Officer, John Gillard, Duzmor Painting, Inc., Circular Hill, Inc., Peter McQuillen, Judith McQuillen, and John Does, Respondents–Defendants.
Amy K. Kendall, Esq., for Petitioners–Plaintiffs. James M. Wujcik, Esq., Village of LeRoy, Zoning Board of Appeals of LeRoy, and Code Enforcement Officers Lang and Steinbrenner, Benjamin J. Bonarigo, Sr., Esq., Duzmor Painting, Circular Hill, Inc ., and Peter & Judith McQuillen, for Respondents–Defendants.
Amy K. Kendall, Esq., for Petitioners–Plaintiffs.
James M. Wujcik, Esq., Village of LeRoy, Zoning Board of Appeals of LeRoy, and Code Enforcement Officers Lang and Steinbrenner, Benjamin J. Bonarigo, Sr., Esq., Duzmor Painting, Circular Hill, Inc ., and Peter & Judith McQuillen, for Respondents–Defendants.
EMILIO COLAIACOVO, J.
Facts & Procedural History
On June 3, 2014, the Village of LeRoy Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter "ZBA") issued a decision wherein it affirmed the issuance of a building permit for a duplex home on Fillmore Street—lot 18 (See tax map No.14–1–116). The ZBA also determined that the subdivision in question had vested. See Decision of Zoning Board of Appeals, June 3, 2014. The ZBA issued a separate decision on July 9, 2014 allowing for the construction of an accessory building (storage building) subject to certain conditions being met.
Petitioners appealed the 2014 duplex permit decision to the ZBA. The ZBA held a public hearing on the subject and affirmed the issuance of the permit. Petitioners subsequently brought a hybrid Article 78 proceeding/declaratory judgment action. On March 6, 2015, the Court (J. Noonan) heard argument on several issues that related to the action commenced by petition. On March 9, 2015, Judge Noonan issued a Decision and Order wherein he determined that a trial should be scheduled for a proper determination of whether the Respondents had a vested right to build duplexes in the subject subdivision and, in turn, whether the Zoning Board of Appeals acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
A hearing (trial) was held before this Court on May 3rd and June 21st, 2016 on the Article 78/Declaratory Judgment action. Thereafter final briefs were submitted. However, in an effort to clarify a legal issue that came up during the hearing, the Court requested that parties submit supplemental memoranda of law on the issue of "vesting" as it pertained to the subject subdivision. All parties complied with the Court's request.
Petitioners have requested that the Court issue a decision to annul the building permit as well as the ZBA's decision that allowed duplex homes within their residential subdivision. Petitioners also seek to annul the building permit for the storage building within the same subdivision.
Respondents argue that duplexes can be built legally within the subdivision because a final Plat Map with conditional approval of up to ten duplexes within the subdivision in question was filed with the Genesee County Clerk after amendment to the Village Zoning Code. Respondents further argue that if the Court determines that the original Duplex Decision is not affirmed, the matter should be remitted to the ZBA for de novo consideration.
Decision
As noted above, on June 3 and July 9, 2014, the ZBA for the Village of LeRoy issued decisions affirming the issuance of building permits for a duplex home and a storage building. In doing so, the ZBA determined that the subject subdivision had vested. After conducting a hearing, the ZBA noted in its June 3rd decision that it had considered "submissions by the attorneys for the Appellants, Knauf Shaw, LLP, and Acting Zoning Enforcement Officer Daniel J. Lang." See Decision of Zoning Board of Appeals, June 3, 2014.
Ultimately this Court must decide whether the actions of the Code Enforcement Officer (hereinafter "CEO") and Joint ZBA are legal. To do this, the Court must determine whether the June 3rd and July 9th, 2014 decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals were arbitrary and capricious. The question of whether the right to build duplexes in the subject subdivision had vested plays a role in that determination, but is not controlling.
After hearing testimony on this matter on May 3rd and June 21st, 2016, and after reviewing initial post-trial legal memoranda, as well as court-requested supplemental legal memoranda, this Court finds that, (1) the Village Code Enforcement Officer acted properly when it issued the building permit for the duplex home, (2) the ZBA's decision was not arbitrary and capricious, and (3) the ZBA's decisions must be upheld.
Article 78 Proceeding & Standard of Review
Article 78 of the CPLR is the main procedural vehicle to review and challenge administrative action in the State of New York. It is well settled law in New York that a Court may not substitute its own judgment for that of a reviewing board. JBS Props. Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Shelter, 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3944, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 32154(U) (Supreme Court, Suffolk County, 2012) ; See Janiak v. Planning Board of the Town of Greenville, 159 A.D.2d 574, 552 N.Y.S.2d 436 (2nd Dept.1990)appeal denied 76 N.Y.2d 707, 560 N.Y.S.2d 989, 561 N.E.2d 889 (1990) ; Mascony Transport and Ferry Service v. Richmond, 71 A.D.2d 896, 419 N.Y.S.2d 628 (2nd Dept.1979)aff'd 49 N.Y.2d 969, 428 N.Y.S.2d 948, 406 N.E.2d 803 (1980). Therefore, if the decision rendered by a reviewing board is within the scope of the authority delegated to it, a Court may not interfere and annul it, unless said decision is arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. Castle Properties Co. v. Ackerson, 163 A.D.2d 785, 558 N.Y.S.2d 334 (3rd Dept.1990).
On judicial review of an administrative action under CPLR Article 78, courts must uphold the administrative exercise of discretion unless it has "no rational basis" or the action is "arbitrary and capricious." Pell v. Board of Ed. Union Free School District, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 (1974). "The arbitrary and capricious test chiefly relates to whether a particular action should have been taken or is justified ... and whether the administrative action is without foundation in fact. Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts." Id. at 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 ; See also Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 494 N.E.2d 429 (1986). Rationality is the key in determining whether an action is arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Matter of Pell v. Board of Education, 34 N.Y.2d at 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321. The court's function is completed on finding that a rational basis supports the administrative determination. See Howard v. Wyman, 28 N.Y.2d 434, 322 N.Y.S.2d 683, 271 N.E.2d 528 (1971). Where the administrative interpretation is founded on a rational basis, that interpretation should be affirmed even if the court might have come to a different conclusion. Mid–State Management Corp. v. New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board, 112 A.D.2d 72, 491 N.Y.S.2d 634 (1st Dept.1985)aff'd 66 N.Y.2d 1032, 499 N.Y.S.2d 398, 489 N.E.2d 1300 (1985) ; Matter of Savetsky v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Southampton, 5 A.D.3d 779, 774 N.Y.S.2d 188 (2d Dept.2004).
The scope of judicial review of a zoning board determination is limited to an examination of whether the determination has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Calvi v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the City of Yonkers, 238 A.D.2d 417, 656 N.Y.S.2d 313 (2d Dept.1997). It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by the zoning board where the evidence conflicts and room for choice exists. Matter of Calvi v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the City of Yonkers; supra, citing Matter of Toys "R" Us v. Silva, 89 N.Y.2d 411, 654 N.Y.S.2d 100, 676 N.E.2d 862 (1996). In essence, great deference is given to local officials and therefore the court will sustain a zoning board's decision if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence. See Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732 (2002) ; Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98 (2nd Dept.2005) ; Mejias v. Town of Shelter Is. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 298 A.D.2d 458, 751 N.Y.S.2d 409 (2nd Dept.2002). To overturn a zoning board's interpretation of its zoning ordinance, the court must find it unreasonable or irrational. Id.
The Plaintiffs argue "that the Duplex Decision was arbitrary and carious [sic] and should be annulled and ... that no vested right to build duplexes was established prior to the Effective Date of the Zoning Law." Kendall Post Trial Brief at p. 21, 751 N.Y.S.2d 409. This Court disagrees.
It is undisputed that the Final Subdivision Plat was filed with the Genesee County Clerk's Office on March 9, 1991 pursuant to Village Law §§ 7–728 and 7–732. Although filed after amendment to the Village Zoning Ordinance, "the significance of the filing of the Final Plat Map means that all contingencies have been addressed and approved by the Planning Board." Wujcik Post–Trial Memorandum of Law at p. 3, 751 N.Y.S.2d 409. Although no duplexes were built in the subject subdivision between 1991 and 2012, in 2012, CEO Gene Sinclair issued two permits for duplexes. Thereafter, two duplexes were "constructed without challenge." Id. at 3, 751 N.Y.S.2d 409. Furthermore, in his 2015 Decision and Order, Judge Robert Noonan determined any challenge to those duplex permits to be "time-barred." Thus, the only remaining issues before this Court are whether CEO Lang acted properly when he issued the 2014 permit and whether the ZBA's Decision affirming the 2014 duplex permit was arbitrary and capricious.
The Court agrees that because the Final Plat Map "was approved and filed after the amendment, the Final Plat Map ... is controlling and duplexes can be built therein." Bonarigo, Supplemental Memorandum of Law at p. 3, 751 N.Y.S.2d 409. Therefore, given that the Final Plat Map allowing for up to ten duplexes was filed in 1991 without issue; that CEO Lang's predecessor issued two duplex permits based on that Plat Map; and that two duplex homes were constructed without protest, this Court fails to see how CEO Lang was not acting within the scope of his authority when he issued the 2014 duplex permit. As such, this Court fails to see how his actions were at all improper.
Even though the Court believes that the Village Code Enforcement Officer acted properly, it is still possible for the ZBA to issue a decision that is arbitrary and capricious. However, it is this Court's conclusion that the ZBA's June 3, 2014 decision was not arbitrary and capricious. Based on the record before the Court, the ZBA conducted a public hearing wherein it considered submissions by attorneys for the Appellants and by acting Code Enforcement Officer Daniel Lang. Thereafter, the ZBA issued a decision in which it made specific findings regarding approval of the subject subdivision, the filing of a Final Plat Map with the Genesee County Clerk, and the erection of multiple duplex homes.
Given these facts, it can hardly be said that the ZBA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the determination of the ZBA is based upon substantial evidence that was made part of an extensive record. As such, because the ZBA had a rational basis to reach its decision, this Court will not disturb it. Bounds v. Village of Clifton Springs Zoning Board of Appeals, 137 A.D.3d 1759, 28 N.Y.S.3d 542 (4th Dept.2016). Mere disagreement with the determination of the ZBA does not render it arbitrary and capricious. In fact, nothing in the record demonstrates that the ZBA reached its determination haphazardly. Accordingly, this Court is without authority to annul or invalidate the ZBA's decision.
Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs' request that the ZBA's "Duplex Decision" be annulled is hereby DENIED.
Furthermore, the Court finds that the issues regarding the "Storage Building Decision" have been rendered moot by the fact that the McQuillen's have constructed their single-family residence in compliance with the Zoning Code. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' request in this regard is also hereby DENIED.