Dodson v. Town Bd. of the Town of Rotterdam

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Garry, P.J.
• Citation: Dodson v. Town Bd. of the Town of Rotterdam, 182 A.D.3d 109, 119 N.Y.S.3d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
• Decision Date: 20 February 2020
• Docket Number: 528898
• Parties: Charles John DODSON et al., Appellants, v. TOWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF ROTTERDAM et al., Respondents.

182 A.D.3d 109

119 N.Y.S.3d 590

Charles John DODSON et al., Appellants,

v.TOWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF ROTTERDAM et al., Respondents.

528898

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: January 17, 2020

Decided and Entered: February 20, 2020

The West Firm, PLLC, Albany (Thomas S. West of counsel), for appellants.

Katherine A. McGuirl, Town Attorney, Rotterdam, for Town Board of the Town of Rotterdam, respondent.

Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany (John J. Henry of counsel), for Lecce Junior Living, LLC, respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Mulvey and Colangelo, JJ.

OPINION AND ORDER

Garry, P.J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Powers, J.), entered March 18, 2019, which granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiffs own residential properties located in the Town of Rotterdam, Schenectady County adjacent to or opposite a parcel of land owned by defendant Lecce Senior Living, LLC. In July 2018, by a simple majority vote of three to two, defendant Town Board of the Town of Rotterdam voted to enact Local Law No. 7 (2018) of the Town of Rotterdam (see Code of the Town of Rotterdam ch 270, art XXXI [hereinafter Local Law No. 7] ), which rezoned a part of Lecce's land comprising approximately 90 acres from A–1 agricultural to a newly-created senior living district (hereinafter SLD) to permit the development of a senior residential community (hereinafter the project). Before the vote, plaintiffs and other nearby landowners submitted protest petitions to the Town Board challenging the rezoning, which the Town Board rejected. Following the passage of Local Law No. 7, plaintiffs brought this action seeking an injunction and a declaratory judgment that the zoning change was invalid because it constituted impermissible spot zoning and also because their protest petitions triggered a requirement pursuant to Town Law § 265 that the rezoning must be approved by a supermajority vote.¹ Defendants moved separately pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. Supreme Court granted the motions and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appeal.

Initially, we reject Lecce's contention that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies because they did not appeal to the Town of Rotterdam Zoning Board of Appeals before commencing this action. Plaintiffs' challenge is directed at the legislative action taken by the Town Board in enacting Local Law No. 7, not at any administrative action that the Zoning Board of Appeals would have had the authority to address. We likewise find no merit in defendants' related contention that plaintiffs' challenge is not yet ripe for review because the current plans for the project may eventually be altered in the site plan review process. Local Law No. 7 rezones part of Lecce's property as an SLD and further provides that access ways and utilities that will serve the project may be located outside the newly-created SLD without rezoning. Whether or not the land is used for these purposes, these provisions are legislative actions that plaintiffs have properly challenged by bringing this action for a declaratory judgment (see Matter of Committee to Preserve Character of Skaneateles v. Major, 187 A.D.2d 940, 940, 591 N.Y.S.2d 648 [1992], lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 652, 601 N.Y.S.2d 582, 619 N.E.2d 660 [1993] ; Matter of Nassau Shores Civic Assn. v. Colby, 118 A.D.2d 782, 783, 500 N.Y.S.2d 291 [1986], appeal dismissed 68 N.Y.2d 808, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1040, 498 N.E.2d 439 [1986] ).

In a civil action, a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) requires the court to "give the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and afford the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference," and to dismiss the pleading if, upon that analysis, it fails to state a cause of action ( Matter of Sullivan Farms IV, LLC v. Village of Wurtsboro, 134 A.D.3d 1275, 1277, 21 N.Y.S.3d 450 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Clearmont Prop., LLC v. Eisner, 58 A.D.3d 1052, 1054, 872 N.Y.S.2d 725 [2009] ). When a party moves to dismiss the complaint in a declaratory judgment action, however, " ‘the court should make a declaration, even though the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief that he [or she] seeks.’ A mere dismissal is not appropriate" (Siegel, N.Y. Prac. § 440 at 848 [6th ed. 2018], quoting Hirsch v. Lindor Realty Corp., 63 N.Y.2d 878, 881, 483 N.Y.S.2d 196, 472 N.E.2d 1024 [1984] ). Upon such a motion, a court is not always precluded from addressing the parties' substantive claims. Where issues of fact are presented, the court should deny a motion to dismiss if the complaint "is sufficient to invoke the court's power to render a declaratory judgment ... as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties in a justiciable controversy" ( North Oyster Bay Baymen's Assn. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 130 A.D.3d 885, 890, 16 N.Y.S.3d 555 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). Where there are no questions of fact and the only issues presented are questions of law or statutory interpretation, "the motion [to dismiss] should be treated as one seeking a declaration in [the] defendant's favor and treated accordingly" (Siegel, N.Y. Prac. § 440 at 848 [6th ed. 2018]; accord Matter of Tilcon N.Y., Inc. v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 87 A.D.3d 1148, 1150, 930 N.Y.S.2d 34 [2011] ). Here, no issues of fact are raised. The resolution of plaintiffs' claims depends solely upon the interpretation of Town Law § 265, Local Law No. 7, and the Town's comprehensive plan – questions of law that the parties have fully briefed. Accordingly, the complaint should not have been dismissed, and we shall review the merits of the issues presented and declare the rights of the parties (see North Oyster Bay Baymen's Assn. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 130 A.D.3d at 890, 16 N.Y.S.3d 555 ; Spilka v. Town of Inlet, 8 A.D.3d 812, 813, 778 N.Y.S.2d 222 [2004] ).

Plaintiffs contend that the rezoning of part of Lecce's property to the newly-created SLD classification constituted illegal spot zoning in that it "singl[ed] out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of said property to the detriment of other owners" ( Matter of Citizens for Responsible Zoning v. Common Council of City of Albany , 56 A.D.3d 1060, 1062, 868 N.Y.S.2d 800 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of Rotterdam Ventures, Inc. v. Town Bd. of the Town of Rotterdam, 90 A.D.3d 1360, 1362, 935 N.Y.S.2d 698 [2011] ). "As a legislative act, a zoning amendment enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality and the burden rests on the party attacking it to overcome that presumption beyond a reasonable doubt" ( Matter of Heights of Lansing, LLC v. Village of Lansing , 160 A.D.3d 1165, 1168, 75 N.Y.S.3d 607 [2018] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis, brackets and citations omitted]; see Asian Ams. for Equality v. Koch, 72 N.Y.2d 121, 131, 531 N.Y.S.2d 782, 527 N.E.2d 265 [1988] ). To do so, the challenger must show that "there is no reasonable relation between the end sought to be achieved by the [zoning amendment] and the means used to achieve that end" ( Matter of Birchwood Neighborhood Assn. v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Colonie, 112 A.D.3d 1184, 1185–1186, 977 N.Y.S.2d 454 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). "Fundamentally, and relevant here, if a zoning amendment is consistent with the municipality's comprehensive plan, it is not spot zoning" ( Matter of Heights of Lansing, LLC v. Village of Lansing, 160 A.D.3d at 1168, 75 N.Y.S.3d 607 [citations omitted]; see generally Town Law § 263 ).

The Town's comprehensive plan states that the Town's senior population is growing and "will continue to have special needs for certain types of housing and services." To address these needs, the plan provides that the Town should "[e]xpand opportunities for housing arrangements to meet the increasing needs of the elderly and disabled" and "[e]ncourage development patterns that promote housing diversity, appropriate non-residential diversity, and conserve natural resources." Local Law No. 7 acknowledges that the comprehensive plan states a need for "safe, affordable and accessible facilities and residences for the Town's senior population," and provides that "[s]enior citizens require unique services and specialized living quarters for elderly and retired citizens who wish to live independently, but prefer to live in a community designed to support their needs" (Code of the Town of Rotterdam § 270–246[A][1], [2] ). The principal use in the SLD created by Local Law No. 7 is a residential development for seniors to be made up of a combination of apartments, townhomes, single-family residences, assisted living facilities and memory care facilities, as well as dining, health care and recreational facilities for use only by residents and their guests (see Code of the Town of Rotterdam § 270–248[A], [B] ). We find no inconsistency between these provisions and the comprehensive plan's express recognition of the need for diverse, appropriate housing arrangements for the Town's senior population.

Contrary to plaintiffs' assertion, the rezoning of the SLD does not conflict with the comprehensive plan's recommendations that the existing residential character of the area where the SLD is located should be preserved and that commercial development should take place in another part of the Town. The SLD is a residential district. The inclusion of health and other services for the sole use of residents does not alter that conclusion, particularly in view of the plan's recognition that the residential needs of the Town's senior population include both housing and services. Likewise, the plan's recommendation that the Town should encourage "housing diversity [and] appropriate non-residential diversity" reveals that...