Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

Page 8 -- December 1996 The case had to be returned to the lower court because it had failed to issue an official declaration. Brookli~e v. Co-Ray Realty Co., 93 N.E. 2d 581 (1950). Subdivision -- Board conditions subdivision approval on off-site road repair Sepco Ventures Ltd. v. Planning Board of Town of Woodbury, 646 N. Y..S. 2d 862 (New York) 1996 Sepco Ventures Ltd. owned a J_25-acre parcel in Woodbury,-N.Y. In its application for subdivision approval to the town planning board, Sepco pro- posed to build 67 single-family houses in a cluster pattern that ultimately left half the property as open space. The developer conducted an extensive review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The board granted preliminary subdivision approval with two conditions for final approval. The developer had to improve two public roads outside the subdivision or post a bond for its "fair share" of the improvements, the amount of which was to be negotiated with the board. The board also required the developer to sign a contract to pay $i,000 per lot for recreation purposes. Sepco received final subdivision approval with two conditions. Before the 23rd building permit was to be issued, Sepco had to improve the off-site roads or contribute its fair share of the improvements to the town. It also had to pay $1,500 per lot for recreational purposes. Sepco sued the board. It said the board had no authority to order it to pay off-site road repair costs or a per-lot fee for recreational purposes. The court dismissed the case, and Sepco appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the board. The board was wrong to condition subdivision approval on off-site road repair. The board could require payment of the recreational-use fee if it fol- lowed the proper procedures, however, so the case was sent back to the board. The board had no authority to require the developer to improve streets outside the subdivision. It could consider the effect of the development on off- site roads and condition approval on plan modifications, but the conditions could not require off-site improvements of public roads. The board had the authority to impose a payment in lieu of setting aside parkland or other property for recreational use, but before doing so, the board had to make two determinations: whether a "proper case" existed for requiring the developer to include land for a park or for recreational use; and that a suitable park of adequate size would not fit within the subdivision. The board failed to consider these issues before ordering the developer to pay the recre- ational-use fee. Matter of Bayswater Realty & Capital Corp. v. Planning Board of Tow~ of Lewisboro, 560 N. Y.S. 2d 623. Matter of Pearson Kent Corp. v. Bea~; 3~5 N.Y.S. 2d 226 N.Y..S. 2d 211.