Aydm Assocs., LLC v. Town of Pamelia

• Decision Date: 08 September 2016
• Docket Number: 7:13-cv-01283 (MAD/TWD)
• Parties: AYDM ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF PAMELIA and Lawrence C. Longway, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

205 F.Supp.3d 252

AYDM ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.TOWN OF PAMELIA and Lawrence C. Longway, Defendants.

7:13-cv-01283 (MAD/TWD)

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed September 8, 2016

FEENEY, CENTI & MACKEY, 100 Great Oaks Boulevard, OF COUNSEL: L. MICHAEL MACKEY, ESQ., Albany, New York 12203, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

MURPHY, BURNS, BARBER & MURPHY, LLP, 226 Great Oaks Boulevard, OF COUNSEL: PETER G. BARBER, ESQ., Albany, New York 12203, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

BARTH SULLIVAN BEHR, 224 Harrison Street, Suite 206, OF COUNSEL: DAVID H. WALSH, IV, ESQ., Syracuse, New York 13202, Attorneys for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 16, 2013, Plaintiff AYDM Associates, LLC, ("Plaintiff") commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Section 1983") and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (" Section 1985") against Defendant Town of Pamelia (the "Town") and Defendant Lawrence C. Longway (collectively "Defendants"). See Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff asserts claims for procedural and substantive violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as claims of conspiracy to deprive him of these constitutional protections. See Dkt. No. 1. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts a state claim for tortious interference with a contract. See id. Presently before the Court is Defendants' summary judgment motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking dismissal of this action against them. See Dkt. No. 41.

II. BACKGROUND

Defendant Longway was first elected the Town of Pamelia Supervisor in 1992 and continues to serve in that capacity. See Dkt. No. 41–26 at 12-13. In 1991, Defendant Longway purchased eighty acres of property in the Town of Pamelia. See id. at 15. As the property owner, he entered into an agreement with a land developer, Colton Corporation, to build forty-six, single-family homes. See Dkt. No. 41–11 at 33-34; Dkt. No. 41–26 at 17-19. Ten homes were initially built by Colton Corporation, and a subsequent developer built an additional twenty-five single-family residences. See Dkt. No. 41–26 at 22-23. The remaining eleven lots were not developed. See id. This development was named Liberty. A part of this property was also approved for development of townhouse/apartment complexes. See Dkt. No. 41–11 at 33; Dkt. No. 41–26 at 28. This second tract of land on the property was approved by the Town of Pamelia Planning Board (the "Planning Board") for the development of multi-dwelling residences, but no action beyond the Planning Board's conditional approval was ever taken. See Dkt. No. 41–26 at 28.

Guy Javarone is a "member" of Plaintiff AYDM Associates. See Dkt. No. 41–30 at 13. Plaintiff is a corporation that owns two properties located within the Defendant Town of Pamelia. See id. at 14. The Emerald Acres subdivision is one of these properties. See id. at 16. On July 12, 2010, Mr. Javarone notified Defendant Longway that Plaintiff was considering the development of a subdivision in the Town of Pamelia, and Plaintiff claims that Defendant Longway offered to sell him his track of land, which had already been approved for development, for $610,000, but Defendant Longway disputes that he made this offer.¹ See Dkt. No. 41–30 at 41-42, 46; Dkt. No. 41–26 at 72-73. In either event, Defendant Longway did not express disapproval of Plaintiff's proposed subdivision during their conversation. See Dkt. No. 41–30 at 48.

In August 2010, Plaintiff submitted an application for a subdivision to the Planning Board. See Dkt. No. 46–47 at ¶ 16. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff submitted a revised application for a "cluster" subdivision of fifty townhouse units on 5.471 acres of land located at State Route 37 and Graham Road in the Town of Pamelia ("Emerald Acres" or the "subdivison"). See Dkt. No. 46–6; Dkt. No. 46–47 at ¶ 16. The Planning Board held the first public hearing on this project on September 1, 2010. See Dkt. No. 41–30 at 69; Dkt. No. 46–9. Harry Potter, the Chairperson of the Planning Board, had concerns about whether the proposed subdivision was an approved use of the commercially zone property because multi-dwelling homes were not a permitted use. See Dkt. No. 41–30 at 66-68; Dkt. No. 46–9. Mr. Javarone thinks that Mr. Potter was negatively influenced by Defendant Longway prior to the public hearing, but he does not have any basis for that conclusion. See Dkt. No. 41–30 at 69.

On October 6, 2010, a public hearing was held by the Planning Board and the subdivision was presented by Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 41–7. A prior board member, who assisted in drafting the Town's ordinances, expressed opposition to the subdivision, and the Planning Board also presented a letter from the Jefferson County Planning Department, which expressed that the use of the commercial property for multi-dwelling residences was not permitted. See id. ; Dkt. No. 41–12 at 60; Dkt. No. 46–17 at 2. Final approval was initially denied, but the denial was rescinded to allow for further clarification on the zoning restrictions. See Dkt. No. 41–7. Mr. Javarone also thinks that "there is some information that was out there that [Defendant Longway] had some conversations with the County," but he acknowledges that he does not know. See Dkt. No. 41–30 at 74. Mr. Javarone does not think that Defendant Longway influenced Planning Board member Eileen Fanning to vote against Plaintiff's project at this public hearing. See Dkt. No. 41–30 at 82. However, he thinks that Planning Board members Mr. Potter and Robert Dorr were influenced by Defendant Longway, but, again, he is unable to articulate a reason for that belief. See Dkt. No. 41–30 at 83-84.

On October 20, 2010, the Planning Board held a special meeting for the purpose of reviewing Plaintiff's application. See Dkt. No. 41–8. The legal parameters of the zoning district and the land set aside requirements for green space were clarified in Plaintiff's favor at this meeting. See id. Single-family dwellings were a permitted use on the property at issue, meaning that no zoning permit or variance would be required. See Dkt. No. 46–17 at 2. However, Plaintiff's property was too restrictive to build "conventional single-family" dwellings that would be financially viable. See id. Under these restrictions, Plaintiff devised a plan to build townhouses under the cluster development clause of Town of Pamelia Zoning Law. See id. ; see Dkt. No. 48–18 at 23-26. Plaintiff represented to the Planning Board that the proposed townhouses could be considered single-family dwellings,² and the Planning Board agreed with Plaintiff. See id. ; Dkt. No. 46–17 at 6-7.

The Planning Board accepted the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQR") form as presented by Plaintiff, see Dkt. No. 41–8, which designated the subdivision as an unlisted action, also referred to as Type-II action, under the Act. See Dkt. No. 46–47 at ¶ 18. On October 20, 2010, the Planning Board issued a negative declaration under SEQR, meaning that the subdivision would not cause significant impact upon the environment. See Dkt. No. 41–8 at 3; Dkt. No. 46–47 at ¶ 18. On the same day, the Planning Board granted final approval for Plaintiff's subdivision subject to seven conditions. See id. at ¶ 19. Among those conditions, final approval required Plaintiff to submit engineering drawings of water distribution plans to the New York Department of Health ("DOH") and to provide a copy of the DOH approval to the Planning Board. See id. at ¶ 20. The property at issue was not purchased by Plaintiff until after this final conditional approval was made.³ See Dkt. No. 41–30 at 71. Planning Board members Ms. Fanning and Mr. Potter voted against approving the subdivision. See id. at 88. Although he does not believe that Ms. Fanning was influenced by Defendant Longway, he believes that Mr. Potter was influenced based on his belief that Defendant Longway "[m]ay have talked to him," but he does not know for sure. See id. at 88.

Mr. Javarone thinks that Defendant Longway "is portrayed in the Town of Pamelia as a very powerful man and if he wants to influence something, he's going to, and [Mr. Javarone] think[s] [Defendant Longway] might have had some conversations with Mr. Potter." See id. at 88. Based upon Defendant Longway's offer to sell his property, Mr. Javarone was concerned that Defendant Longway would not fully support Emerald Acres. See id. at 56. Mr. Javarone characterized this offer as a "shake-down" even though the offer was only mentioned one time. See id. at 163. Defendant Longway did not ever threaten Mr. Javarone that he would impede Plaintiff's project if his property was not purchased. See id. at 163. Mr. Javarone believed that Defendant Longway was a "bully, and if he didn't like something, he wasn't going to let it happen." See id. at 56. Mr. Jaravone acknowledges that he did not have any personal experiences with Defendant Longway prior to Emerald Acres that formed this impression. See id. at 56-57. Mr. Javarone thinks that perhaps someone told him or he read in a newspaper that Mr. Longway was a bully, but he does not recall. See id. at 57.

Separate from his interactions with the Town, Guy Javorone went to the DOH and had an unscheduled meeting with Claude Curley, a public health engineer with the DOH, on or about September 2, 2010. See Dkt. No. 41–14 at 8-9. Mr. Javorone made an audio recording of this meeting unbeknownst to Mr. Curley. See id. at 11. Mr. Curley advised that the plan to build fifty townhouses on approximately five acres of land was a realty subdivision under the definition of New York Public Health Law and Sanitary Code, and he provided Mr. Javarone with a standard packet of policy and guidance developed by the DOH for approval, which included a realty subdivision checklist. See id. at 14. At that meeting, Mr. Javorone learned that the Planning Board may have provided incorrect...