Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

Page 6 --December 15, 1996 Moratorium, - Village demands new plat, then enacts moratorium ©blin IYomes Inc. v. Village of Dobbs Ferry, 935 F. Supt~. 497 (New York) 2996 Oblin Homes asked the Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., planning board for permission to extend a public road to reach some building lots it wanted to develop. The board told Oblin it had to submit a new plat for the subdivision. (The previous plat was filed in I926.) A state court upheld the board's decision. Oblin appealed. While the appeal was pending, the village adopted a measure that placed a moratorium on construction at the subdivision. Rather than challenge the moratorium in court, Oblin sued the village in federal court for $18 million. Oblin claimed the plat requirement and mora- torium were a taking and a denial of due process. The moratorium expired in 1995. Weeks later, a state appeals court ordered the planning board to consider Oblin's application without a plat, but only if Oblin renewed its application. Oblin did not renew its application. By that point, Oblin had given up on federal claims that the village took its property or that the plat requirement denied it due process of law. The developer now argued the moratorium denied it use of its property without due process. According to Oblin, the moratorium made it futile to submit a new application. Oblin admitted the moratorium's enactment complied with local rules and regulations and that the village board of trustees had given public notice and held public hearings. Oblin said this was not enough because it was not specifically notified of the proposal. However, one. of Oblin's owners was at the meeting where the board first asked its atto. rney to draft the moratorium. Both Oblin and the village asked the federal court for judgment without, a trial. DECISION: Judgment for the village. The moratorium did not deny Oblin the use of its property without due process. Oblin did not show the moratorium harmed it. The state court upheld the plat requirement before the moratorium was enacted. The court's decision stayed in effect until after the moratorium expired. Oblin did not first challenge the moratorium in state court, so it could not challenge it on procedural grounds in federal court. Further, the evidence did not support Oblin's claim that it would have been futile to file a new applica- tion: It never made this claim in state court nor did it file a new plat under protest. Oblin did nothing to suggest it was willing to attempt to comply with the plat requirement. No evidence suggested the village did not use proper procedures to enact the moratorium. Even if the law did require personal notice, one of ©blin's