Opinion
No. 0103/2016.
06-16-2017
Roy A. STENGEL, Matias Aguirre, Amy L. Aguirre, Peter P. Mack, Linda L. Mack and Marie Greaves, Petitioners, v. TOWN OF POUGHKEEPSIE PLANNING BOARD, Arlington Farms, Inc., and Malabar Realty, LLC, Respondents.
Richard J. Olson, Esq., McCabe & Mack, LLP, Poughkeepsie, New York, Attorneys for Petitioners. James P. Horan, Esq., Stenger, Roberts, Davis & Diamond, LLP, Arlington Farms, Inc. and Malabar Realty, Inc., Wappingers Falls, New York, Attorneys for Respondents. Lisa M. Cobb, Esq., Wallace & Wallace, LLP, Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Board, Poughkeepsie, New York, Attorneys for Respondent.
Richard J. Olson, Esq., McCabe & Mack, LLP, Poughkeepsie, New York, Attorneys for Petitioners.
James P. Horan, Esq., Stenger, Roberts, Davis & Diamond, LLP, Arlington Farms, Inc. and Malabar Realty, Inc., Wappingers Falls, New York, Attorneys for Respondents.
Lisa M. Cobb, Esq., Wallace & Wallace, LLP, Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Board, Poughkeepsie, New York, Attorneys for Respondent.
JAMES D. PAGONES, J.
Petitioners seek a judgment, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, nullifying and invalidating two determinations made by the respondent Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Board (hereinafter "Board"), specifically: (1) a determination made on or about December 18, 2015 granting conditional site plan approval to Respondent Malabar Realty, LLC (hereafter "Malabar") as amended by resolution dated July 21, 2016; and, (2) granting such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper; and, (3) awarding the costs and disbursements of this proceeding.
| The following papers were read: | |
|---|---|
| Amended Notice of Petition–Amended Verified Petition | 1–6 |
| Exhibits A–D | |
| Verified Answer–Affidavit of Service | 7–8 |
| Verified Answer | 9 |
| Affirmation in Opposition–Affidavit of Service | 10–11 |
| Affirmation–Affidavit of Service | 12–13 |
| Reply Affirmation–Exhibits A–E–Affidavit of Service | 14–20 |
| Exhibits 21 |
Upon the foregoing papers, the petition is decided as follows:
By way of background, this Article 78 proceeding has been commenced by residential neighbors opposing a proposed motor vehicle service facility/gas station. The petitioners seek to annul the determinations of Respondent Planning Board which granted site plan approval for such use.
As previously stated in this Court's May 23, 2016 Decision, Order and Judgment, a local planning board has broad discretion in deciding applications for site-plan approvals. Judicial review is limited to determining whether the board's action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Harbor Park Realty, LLC v. Mandelik, 116 AD3d 1040 [2nd Dept 2014] ). The Planning Board's determination should be sustained upon judicial review if it was not illegal, had a rational basis, and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Kearney, 62 AD3d 1000 [2nd Dept 2009]leave to appeal denied by 13 NY3d 716 ). "When reviewing the determinations of a local planning board, courts consider substantial evidence only to determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board's determination" ( Matter of Kaywood Props., Ltd. V. Forte, 69 AD3d 628 [2nd Dept 2010]citing to Matter of Kearney v.. Kita, 62 AD3d 1000 [2nd Dept 2009]quoting Matter of Gallo v. Rosell, 52 AD3d 514 [2nd Dept 2008] ).
In its May 23, 2016 Decision, Order and Judgment, this Court confirmed that the Planning Board was entitled to exercise discretion in making its determinations. The Court then remanded the proceeding to the Planning Board, directing the Board to first address whether the proposed project rehabilitates existing structures and previously disturbed land areas. Secondly, this Court stated that the Board must address: (1) whether the proposed plan complies with the setback requirements; (2) whether the Board is waiving setback requirements; or, alternatively, (3) whether the Board is delineating the project as one for adaptive reuse and redevelopment, thereby cutting the setback requirement in half.
The petitioners maintain that the Planning Board failed to comply with § 210–152[A][2] of the Town of Poughkeepsie Code by approving a site plan that violated the statute's mandatory setback and landscaping requirements. The petitioners contend that discretion in redevelopment projects is limited to "the conversion or the rehabilitation of existing structures ..." only. They argue that this proposed plan is not rehabilitative in nature since it seeks to raze and rebuild. The petitioners conclude that since the plan is not rehabilitative, the Board lacks the discretion to adjust setback requirements. In light of this assertion, they allege that the proposed plan is illegal and violates the Town of Poughkeepsie statute.
Following the May 23, 2016 Decision, Order and Judgment in which this Court remanded the aforementioned issues to the Planning Board, the Board submitted a resolution on July 21, 2016 (hereafter "July resolution"). The July resolution addressed whether the respondents' proposed site plan adhered to the setback requirements proscribed by § 210–152[A] of the Town of Poughkeepsie Code. Additionally, the Board addressed whether it was planning to waive the setback requirements or whether it intended to delineate the project as one for adaptive reuse and redevelopment, effectively halving the setback requirements.
In the July resolution, the Board stated that § 210–152[A] of the statute does not limit its discretion to only redevelopment and rehabilitation projects. Instead, the Board stated that the language of the statute provides it with broad discretion, which includes redevelopment and rehabilitation projects. The Board asserted that § 210–152 of the Code allows that "the Planning Board is also hereby authorized to use its discretion as to the applicability of these guidelines to redevelopment projects involving the conversion of the rehabilitation of existing structures and previously disturbed land areas." The Board indicated that the language of this section of the statute provided it with the broad discretion to plan various types of projects, not solely rehabilitation projects.
In its July resolution, the Board also confirmed that the proposed plan is indeed a redevelopment project. The Board supported this finding by referencing the statute's definition of redevelopment, which includes "... the removal and replacement of more than 65% of the gross floor area [of] an existing building or structure ..." and "the use of land from which previous improvements have been removed...." The Board argued that since the plan seeks to raze all existing structures, the project fits within the Code's § 210–152 definition of redevelopment. The Board concluded that it clearly has discretion over rehabilitation projects, if not over all projects.
Additionally, in the July resolution, the Board asserted that § 210–152[A] of the statute allowed it to waive the setback requirements if the Board found it necessary or warranted to do so; however, the Board claimed in the July resolution that it did not find a waiver to be warranted since the plan adhered to the setback requirements that are outlined under § 210–9 of the statute. § 210–9 defines a setback as "... the distance from the property line to the nearest part of the applicable building, structure or sign measured perpendicularly to the property line." Based on this definition, the Board found that a line drawn in such a way from the residential property border does not intersect any structure proposed to be located on the project site. The Board found that since there is no structure on the portion of the parcel adjacent to the residential lot, there is no violation of the setback requirements. The Board stated that since it adhered to the setback requirements in the plan, there was no reason to waive the setback requirements.
Lastly, the respondents addressed whether the Board planned to delineate the project as one for adaptive reuse and redevelopment, which would reduce the setback requirement by fifty percent. According to the Planning Board, this is not an adaptive reuse project. The Board noted that § 210–152[A][2][b][4] of the Poughkeepsie Town Code allows the Board to exercise discretion to create "... alternate landscape buffer setbacks up to 50% for adaptive reuse and redevelopment projects involving the conversion or the rehabilitation of existing structures...." However, in its July resolution, the Board maintained that this portion of the statute applies to "... setback requirements for buildings, parking areas, and loading areas for nonresidential uses that border residential districts." Therefore, the Board stated that since the plan does not involve such areas, this subsection of the statute does not apply. In its July resolution, the Board confirmed that this is not an adaptive reuse project and it does not implicate any setbacks.
Based upon the foregoing, the petitioners' amended petition to nullify and invalidate Respondent Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Board's conditional site plan approval made to Respondent Malabar Realty, LLC is dismissed. The Planning Board's July resolution adequately addresses the applicability of § 210–152[A] as it pertains to the December 18, 2015 conditional site plan approval. The Board confirmed that the plan is a redevelopment project as defined by § 210–152 of the Code. The Board also confirmed that the plan adheres to setback requirements put forth by § 210–9 of the statute. Since it adheres to the requirements, the Board decided that a waiver is not warranted. Finally, the Board decided in its resolution that this is not an adaptive reuse project and therefore, will not seek to alter the setback requirements.
As discussed in this Court's May 23, 2016 Decision, Order and Judgment, the Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Board has broad discretion in deciding applications for site-plan approvals. The Board's July resolution offers sufficient evidence to support the Board's assertion that this project was rationally conceived and thoughtfully planned. As such, the Board's action complies with the Town of Poughkeepsie Code's setback requirements and is not illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Petitioners argue that they timely challenged the July 21, 2016 resolution. As previously determined in its March 2, 2017 Decision and Order, this Court has retained jurisdiction to review the amended petition. Therefore, the respondents' argument regarding lack of timeliness is without merit.
As stated above, the amended petition is hereby dismissed. The foregoing constitutes the decision, order and judgment of the Court.