Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/11/2007

Home

June 15,20071 Volume 11 No. 12 \ the ... Board being one for sketch plan approval." The board held several meetings at which the application was discussed, but, before a decision was reached, the toWn enacted a moratorium on plannii"lg board review of subdivision applications, effectively halting Laurel's development plans. Laurel sued the board, asking the court to find the moratorium in- valid and to compel the board to make a decision on its application. in response, the board petitioned the court to find the moratorium val- id. The court found in Laurel's favor, finding that the law that created the moratorium was invalid as it applied to Laurel's property because of the court-ordered language in the earlier settlement. The court di- rected the board to amend the law so as to provide an exemption for Laurel's application and, on the merits presented at the hearing, fur- ther directed the board to approve the application. The board appealed. Decision: Reversed. The appeals court found that the moratorium was a valid "stop- gap" or interim measure, and it was "reasonably designed to tem- porarily halt development" while the town updated its master plan and considered comprehensive changes to its zoning ordinance. The appeals court noted that the moratorium, which lasted eight months initially and was briefly extended thereafter, was not an unreasonably long amount of time for the town to consider such important chang- es-though the court added extending it any longer could result in a challenge to its constitutionality. Still, the moratorium was not unreasonable, and as applied to Lau- rel's property did not violate the terms of the earlier settlement. That agreement merely stipulated that the board had to hear the application at its next meeting, which the board did, and at any subsequent meet- ings until a decision could be reached. Importantly, the order required the board to hear the application in acco'rdance with the rules of the board-which included adhering to the moratorium, once passed. Since the moratorium was valid, the board could not hear or grant Laurel's application while it was in effect and Laurel had no clear legal right to relief"--:"the standard under which the lower court had granted Laurel's requests. The decision of the lower court was reversed. See also: 119 Development Associates v. Village of Irvington, 171 A.D.2d 656,566 N. Y.S.2d 954 (2d Dep't 1991). 3 99