Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2014 1 Volume 81 Issue 7 Vested Rights — Developers claim vested rights to construct project under prior zoning regulations based on final site plan approval Town contends developers' failure to comply with site plan approval conditions barred the vesting of rights Citation:Exeter Bldg. Corp. v. Town of Newburgh, 114 A.D.3d 774, 980 N.Y.S.2d 154 (2d Dep't 2014) NEW YORK (02/13/14) —This case addressed the issue of whether a developer had acquired vested rights to develop property in accordance with prior regulations. The Background /Facts: Exeter Building Corp and 17K Newburgh, LLC (collectively, the "Developers ") owned a 29 -acre parcel of real property (the "Property ") in the Town of Newburgh (the "Town "). The Property was in the Town's R -3 zoning district, which permitted multifamily housing. In 2002, the Developers applied to the Town's Planning Board (the "Board ") for approval of a site plan for a proposed project to be known as Madison Green. The project was to consist of 34 residential buildings, each containing four single - family units, for a total of 136 units. At the time the Developers submitted their site plan application, there was a sewer moratorium in effect in the Town. The Developers acknowl- edged that no final approval of their site plan application could be obtained until that moratorium was lifted. Also at the time the Developers submitted their site plan application, the Town was engaged in a rezoning effort. Ultimately, in March 2006, the Town enacted a comprehensive plan ( "Local Law 3 "). Under Local Law 3, the Developers' property was rezoned from R -3 to R -1, a more restrictive category. However, because of a boundary adjustment that the Developers had negotiated with an adjoining property owner in January 2006, which constituted a subdivision, pursuant to Town law, the Developers had a three - year exemption from the rezoning of their property. Eventually, in December 2007, the Town gave the Developers final site plan approval for the Madison Green project, subject to 18 specific conditions. From the time of their 2002 site application submission until the end of the three -year exemption period in January 2009, the Developers spent over $540,000 in engineering and review and construction costs. Still, the Developers had failed to comply with many of the conditions set forth in the final site plan approval. In April 2009, the Developers sought to amend the site plan. However, © 2014 Thomson Reuters 5