Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004

Home

September 25, 2004 -- Page '7 Vested Rights m Lando,wners demolish low-income housing and build access road -. Town states both are conditions for zoning change Circzrion.' Srerngass v. Town Board of Town of CMrkstown, Supreme Court of New York, A£p. Div., 2mi Dew., Nos. 2002-06984 & 2002-1041ff (2004) NEW YORK (08/09/04) -- Seeking to redevelop their property, several land- owners applied for a zoning change that would increase the allowable residen- tiat density in their district. The town board of Clarkstown approved the rezoning on' the conditions that the Bobbin Inn (one of the properties in the district) be demohshed within 45 days and an access road be built to a local highway. The landowners acquired the mn and. the necessary easements, then. complied with the town's conditions. While a site plan application was pending, the town restored the property to its original zoning. The landowners sued, and the court ruled in their favor. The town appealed, arguing the landowners acquired no rights to the zon- ing change. DECISION: Returned to the lower court: The record was insufficient to make a decision, although it was possible the landowners acquired vested rights in the zoning change. " Generally, a landowner did not have vested fights in a zoning change. To establish vested rights, a landowner had to show expenditures and actions that were so substantial that the municipal action resulted in a serious loss that rendered the improvements essentially valueless. The town's rezoning of the property, required the demolition of the Bobbin Inn within 45 days and the acquisition of easements or adjoining parcels in. order ro build an access road. The resolution mandated the landowners spend ahnost a million dollars in exchange for the rezOnina. Consequently, ir was.likely the landowners gained vested rights in the rezoning. The town may also have acted in bad faith. The Bobbin Inn housed families seeldng public assistance. The town acknowledged some of the residents had created problems and it considered the inn a problem for a long time. An income- producing building, which the town regarded as a nuisance, was demolished in exchange for rezoning. The town may have implemented the rezomng as splay so tl~e landowners, at [heir own expense, would do What the town was unable to do. However. the record .was insufficient to make a final decision regarding d~ese issues, so the case had to be remrued to the lower court. <'0~ ,d.~'o: ~liin.gron Construction Cor,?ororion ~' zonino, Board of Appeals, ;',re UlL;,?: £.I~S. 5~nrures _.>rporcuzon v. rus,e,. 139