Greenport Grp., LLC v. Town Bd. of the Town of Southold
| Decision Date | 05 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2016–00674,2015–07897,Index No. 2730/01 |
| Citation | 167 A.D.3d 575,90 N.Y.S.3d 188 |
| Parties | GREENPORT GROUP, LLC, et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. TOWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondent- Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
167 A.D.3d 575
90 N.Y.S.3d 188
GREENPORT GROUP, LLC, et al., Appellants-Respondents,
v.
TOWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondent- Appellant.
2015–07897
2016–00674
Index No. 2730/01
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—February 20, 2018
December 5, 2018
Wickham, Bressler & Geasa, P.C., Mattituck, N.Y. (Janet Geasa of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler & Yakaboski, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (Christopher B. Abbott of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, for declaratory relief, the plaintiffs appeal and the defendant cross-appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Joseph A. Santorelli, J.), dated June 17, 2015, and (2) a partial judgment of the same court dated July 2, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary
judgment dismissing the second through sixth causes of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Adrienne Solof and for summary judgment with respect to the third, fourth, and sixth causes of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Greenport Group, LLC. The order, insofar as cross-appealed from, denied those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment with respect to the second and fifth causes of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Greenport Group, LLC. The partial judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon the order, dismissed the second through sixth causes of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Adrienne Solof and, in effect, dismissed the third, fourth, and sixth causes of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Greenport Group, LLC.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed, as the portions of the order appealed from were superseded by the partial judgment; and it is further,
ORDERED that the cross appeal from the partial judgment is dismissed, as the defendant is not aggrieved by the partial judgment; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, on the law, and those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment with respect to the second and fifth causes of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Greenport Group, LLC, are granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the partial judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, in effect, dismissing the third, fourth, and sixth causes of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Greenport Group, LLC; as so modified, the partial judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for severance of the second through sixth causes of action insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Greenport Group, LLC, and for the entry of an appropriate judgment on those causes of action, inter alia, declaring that the subject Local Law changing the zoning designation of the subject property is valid; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.
In December 1998, the plaintiff Adrienne Solof acquired the subject property, a 31–acre parcel of land located in the Town of Southold. The property was largely undeveloped aside from four separate buildings, each containing two residential units, which were built in 1984 on a one-acre portion of the property, as well as a sewer substation and public water and sewer-line hook ups. Solof conveyed ownership of the property to the plaintiff Greenport Group, LLC (hereinafter Greenport Group), on December 18, 1999. At that time, the southerly portion of the property was zoned "Limited Business" (hereinafter LB) and the northerly portion was zoned "Hamlet Density" (hereinafter HD). The four buildings on the property were part of a larger project to build multiresidence senior citizen housing, which had been approved for construction of 140 additional units in 1986. However, no construction had taken place on the property since 1984.
In September 1999, the defendant, Town Board of the Town of Southold (hereinafter the Board), considered a resolution to change the zoning designation of the entire parcel to a low-density residential zone known as R–80. Although the 1999 resolution was not approved, it was re-presented on September 12, 2000, at which time it was approved by the Board, and the zoning designation of the entire parcel was changed to R–80 by the filing of Local Law 20–2000 (hereinafter the Local Law) on
October 2, 2000. The R–80 zoning designation increased the minimum lot sizes to 80,000 square feet from 10,000 square feet under the prior zoning designations.
Greenport Group and Solof commenced this action against
the Board, seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that the Local Law changing the zoning designation of the property is null and void. The plaintiffs alleged that the Board's actions were arbitrary and capricious (second cause of action) and the rezoning was inconsistent with the goals of the Town's comprehensive plan (fifth cause of action), that the rezoning subjected their property to disparate treatment as compared to similarly situated properties and constituted unconstitutional reverse spot zoning (third cause of action), that they had vested rights in the prior zoning designations (fourth cause of action), and that the rezoning amounted to a regulatory taking of property without just compensation (sixth cause of action).
The Board moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring that the Local Law is valid. In an order dated June 17, 2015, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied those branches of the Board's motion which were for summary judgment with respect to the second and fifth causes of action insofar as asserted by Greenport Group, and granted those branches of the motion which were for summary judgment with respect to the third, fourth, and sixth causes of action insofar as asserted by Greenport Group and for summary judgment dismissing the second through sixth causes of action insofar as asserted by Solof. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Troy Sand & Gravel Co. v. Town of Sand Lake
...omitted]; see Udell v. Haas, 21 N.Y.2d 463, 469–470, 288 N.Y.S.2d 888, 235 N.E.2d 897 [1968] ; Greenport Group, LLC v. Town Bd. of the Town of Southold, 167 A.D.3d 575, 579, 90 N.Y.S.3d 188 [2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 910, 2019 WL 2623972 [2019] ). "A town's zoning determination is entitled......
-
61 Crown St., LLC v. City of Kingston Common Council
...Udell v. Haas, 21 N.Y.2d 463, 471, 288 N.Y.S.2d 888, 235 N.E.2d 897 [1968] ; see generally Greenport Group, LLC v. Town Bd. of the Town of Southold, 167 A.D.3d 575, 580, 90 N.Y.S.3d 188 [2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 910, 2019 WL 2623972 [2019] ). Plaintiffs also contend that the rezoning cons......
-
JDM Holdings, LLC v. Vill. of Warwick
...with a well-considered land-use plan, cannot constitute "reverse spot" zoning ( Greenport Group, LLC v. Town Bd. of the Town of Southold, 167 A.D.3d 575, 580, 90 N.Y.S.3d 188 ). Here, the Village demonstrated, prima facie, that Local Law No. 14 is consistent with its 2004 Comprehensive Plan......
-
Hogue v. Vill. of Dering Harbor
...facie, that the subject zoning was consistent with a comprehensive plan (see Greenport Group, LLC v. Town Bd. of the Town of Southold, 167 A.D.3d 575, 90 N.Y.S.3d 188 ). "The power to zone is derived from the Legislature and must be exercised in the case of towns and villages in accord with......