Golden v. Planning Bd. of Town of Ramapo

• Decision Date: 03 May 1972
• Parties: , 285 N.E.2d 291, 63 A.L.R.3d 1157, 2 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,296 In the Matter of Ruth GOLDEN et al., Respondents, v. PLANNING BOARD OF the TOWN OF RAMAPO et al., Appellants. ROCKLAND COUNTY BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, Inc. et al., Respondents, v. John McALEVEY et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 138

334 N.Y.S.2d 138

30 N.Y.2d 359, 285 N.E.2d 291, 63

A.L.R.3d 1157,

2 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,296

In the Matter of Ruth GOLDEN et al., Respondents, v. PLANNING BOARD OF the TOWN OF RAMAPO et al., Appellants.

ROCKLAND COUNTY BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, Inc. et al., Respondents, v. John McALEVEY et al., Constituting the Town Board of the

Town of Ramapo et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 3, 1972.

Robert H. Freilich and Max Mason, Spring Valley, for appellants.

David Coral and Reuben Ortenberg, Suffern, for respondents in the above-entitled proceeding.

David W. Silverman, New City, for respondents in the above-entitled action.

SCILEPPI, Judge.

Both cases arise out of the 1969 amendments to the Town of Ramapo's Zoning Ordinance. In Golden, petitioners, the owner of record and contract vendee, by way of a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 sought an order reviewing and annulling a decision and determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo which denied their application for preliminary approval of a residential subdivision plat because of an admitted failure to secure a special permit as required by section 46--13.1 of the Town zoning ordinance prohibiting subdivision approval except where the residential developer has secured, prior to the application for plat approval, a special permit or a variance pursuant to section F of the ordinance. Special Term sustained the amendments and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division elected, since all necessary parties were before the court, to treat the proceeding as an action for declaratory judgment and reversed, 37 A.D.2d 236, 324 N.Y.S.2d 178.

The plaintiffs in Rockland County Builders Association, on the other hand, sought, in an action for declaratory judgment, to set aside the ordinance as unconstitutional and commenced the present action after the Planning Board had denied plaintiff Mildred Rhodes preliminary plat approval for her parcel of property because of a conceded failure on her part to obtain a special permit as required under the challenged ordinance. The remaining plaintiffs, Rockland County Builders Association, a membership corporation composed of builders engaged in the purchase of land and construction of residences of all types through the Town, as well as the Eldorado Developing Corporation, possessed of some 12 acres situate within the Town, apparently have never made application for approval of a plat and have never sought a special permit, as a prerequisite to such approval. Special Term, concluding that the constitutional attack was premature because of the asserted failure to exhaust administrative remedies (cf. Old Farm Road v. Town of New Castle, 26 N.Y.2d 462, 311 N.Y.S.2d 500, 259 N.E.2d 920), denied their motion for summary judgment and granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Appellate Division, 37 A.D.2d 783, 324 N.Y.S.2d 190, held that the parties were presently aggrieved and relying on Golden, reversed and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Among the complaining parties, Rockland County Builders is not a property owner and Eldorado has never sought preliminary approval of a subdivision plat. Petitioner Golden and plaintiff Rhodes have both sought plat approval and have been denied the same for failure to apply for a special permit. Though the builders are obviously not aggrieved by the recent amendments, landowners prior to gaining approval for subdivision, of necessity, would be required to apply for a special permit, which, absent certain enumerated improvements would invariably be denied. The prescription is mandatory and, were we to conclude that the standards established for the permit's issuance were unconstitutional, quite unlike the situation obtaining in Old Farm Road v. Town of New Castle, 26 N.Y.2d 462, 311 N.Y.S.2d 500, 259 N.E.2d 920, Supra, the ordinance itself could admit of no constitutionally permissible construction so as to require initial administrative relief to determine whether injury has occurred (Id., at p. 464, 311 N.Y.S.2d at p. 501, 259 N.E.2d at p. 920). The attack by the subdividing landowner is directed against the ordinance in its entirety, and the thrust of the petition and complaint, respectively, is that the ordinance of itself operates to destroy the value and markekability of the subject premises for residential use and thus constitutes a present invasion of the property rights of the complaining landholders. The alleged harm is thus immediate and is sufficient to raise a justiciable issue as to the validity of the subject ordinance (see Euclid v. Ambler Co., 272 U.S. 365, 386, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303; Scarsdale Supply Co. v. Village of Scarsdale, 8 N.Y.2d 325, 327, 206 N.Y.S.2d 773, 774, 170 N.E.2d 198, 199; Dowsey v. Village of Kensington, 257 N.Y. 221, 226, 177 N.E. 427, 429; Ulmer Park Realty Co. v. City of New York, 267 App.Div. 291, 293--294, 45 N.Y.S.2d 527, 529--530).

Experiencing the pressures of an increase in population and the ancillary problem of providing municipal facilities and services, ¹ the Town of Ramapo, as early as 1964, made application for grant under section 801 of the Housing Act of 1964 (78 U.S.Stat. 769) to develop a master plan. The plan's preparation included a four-volume study of the existing land uses, public facilities, transportation, industry and commerce, housing needs and projected population trends. The proposals appearing in the studies were subsequently adopted pursuant to section 272--a of the Town Law, Consol.Laws, c. 62, in July, 1966 and implemented by way of a master plan. The master plan was followed by the adoption of a comprehensive zoning ordinance. Additional sewage district and drainage studies were undertaken which culminated in the adoption of a capital budget, providing for the development of the improvements specified in the master plan within the next six years. Pursuant to section 271 of the Town Law, authorizing comprehensive planning, and as a supplement to the capital budget, the Town Board adopted a capital program which provides for the location and sequence of additional capital improvements for the 12 years following the life of the capital budget. The two plans, covering a period of 18 years, detail the capital improvements projected for maximum development and conform to the specifications set forth in the master plan, the official map and drainage plan.

Based upon these criteria, the Town subsequently adopted the subject amendments for the alleged purpose of eliminating premature subdivision and urban sprawl. Residential development is to proceed according to the provision of adequate municipal facilities and services, with the assurance that any concomitant restraint upon property use is to be of a 'temporary' nature and that other private uses, including the construction of individual housing, are authorized.

The amendments did not rezone or reclassify any land into different residential or use districts, ² but, for the purposes of implementing the proposals appearing in the comprehensive plan, consist, in the main, of additions to the definitional sections of the ordinance, section 46--3, and the adoption of a new class of 'Special Permit Uses', designated 'Residential Development Use.' 'Residential Development Use' is defined as 'The erection or construction of dwellings or any vacant plots, lots or parcels of land' (§ 46--3, as amd.); and, any person who acts so as to come within that definition, 'shall be deemed to be engaged in residential development which shall be a separate use classification under this ordinance and subject to the requirement of obtaining a special permit from the Town Board' (§ 46--3, as amd.).

The standards for the issuance of special permits are framed in terms of the availability to the proposed subdivision plat of five essential facilities or services: specifically (1) public sanitary sewers or approved substitutes; (2) drainage facilities; (3) improved public parks or recreation facilities, including public schools; (4) State, county or town roads--major, secondary or collector; and, (5) firehouses. No special permit shall issue unless the proposed residential development has accumulated 15 development points, to be computed on a siding scale of values assigned to the specified improvements under the statute. Subdivision is thus a function of immediate availability to the proposed plat of certain municipal improvements; the avowed purpose of the amendments being to phase residential development to the Town's ability to provide the above facilities or services.

Certain savings and remedial provisions are designed to relieve of potentially unreasonable restrictions. Thus, the board may issue special permits vesting a present right to proceed with residential development in such year as the development meets the required point minimum, but in no event later than the final year of the 18-year capital plan. The approved special use permit is fully assignable, and improvements scheduled for completion within one year from the date of an application are to be credited as though existing on the date of the application. A prospective developer may advance the date of subdivision approval by agreeing to provide those improvements which will bring the proposed plat within the number of development points required by the amendments. And applications are authorized to the 'Development Easement Acquisition Commission' for a reduction of the assessed valuation. Finally, upon application to the Town Board, the development point requirements may be varied should the board determine that such a variance or modification is consistent with the on-going development plan.

The undisputed effect of these integrated efforts in land use planning and development is to provide an over-all program of orderly growth and adequate facilities through a sequential development policy commensurate with progressing...