Holmes v. Planning Bd. of Town of New Castle

Decision Date17 November 1980
Citation78 A.D.2d 1,433 N.Y.S.2d 587
PartiesWilliam HOLMES et al., Appellants, v. PLANNING BOARD OF the TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Shamberg, Bender & Marwell, P. C., Mount Kisco (Stuart R. Shamberg, Mount Kisco, and Robert F. Davis, Associate, Mount Kisco, of counsel), for appellants

Lawrence Dittelman, Chappaqua, for respondent.

Before MOLLEN, P. J., and HOPKINS, TITONE and MANGANO, JJ.

TITONE, Justice.

On appeal this court must determine the reasonableness of a condition which was imposed by the Planning Board of the Town of New Castle as a requisite of its approval of the site plan submitted by the petitioners. The condition is based on a limited goal plan, entitled the King Street Hill Area Site Plan. The plan is circumscribed in scope and area. Its goal is to provide a partial solution to the problem of traffic congestion on a small section of King Street, the main east-west artery of the Town of New Castle. This goal is to be achieved by using interconnected parking lots and common access drives as the relief mechanisms.

Since the condition is based on a plan, and has no meaning without reference to the plan, the reasonableness of the condition cannot be ascertained without correspondingly considering the reasonableness of the plan. Reasonableness in the context of this appeal requires a determination that neither the plan nor the condition is arbitrary, confiscatory, or discriminatory. The application of these tests has been complicated by the formless and ambivalent nature of what has been adopted by the board as a plan.

The King Street Hill Area Site Plan is in reality nothing more than a concept, a brilliant concept given the problem it was designed to cure, but a concept nonetheless. As such, the plan is presently being implemented by the imposition of conditions, without full consideration of its final form and effects upon full execution, or the strategies necessary to achieve full execution.

Since the condition requires the petitioners to participate in an amorphous plan, the final overall effects of the condition on petitioners' property cannot be determined by this court from the record as now constituted. In effect, we are limited to considering the reasonableness of the condition based solely upon the concept and to this extent I find that the condition is constitutionally valid. But this finding does not fully resolve the issues presented on this appeal. In my opinion, the matter must be remitted to the planning board for the articulation of an implementation plan so that the petitioners may discover the full extent of the participation required from them and the benefits and burdens they will incur under the plan.

A thorough recitation of the facts is necessary in order for one to understand the concept as presented and its unacknowledged limitations.

THE PROBLEM

The petitioners' property is located on the north side of King Street in the Chappaqua business district of the Town of New Castle. The area was originally residential and, unfortunately, the present physical infra-structure of the district reflects the former low intensity use. Most businesses are conducted in what were once private homes. Clients and patrons of the businesses and professional offices park their cars within lots confined by property lines or adjacent to the premises. To reach these lots, they must use the same driveways which formerly serviced the residences.

As noted, the petitioners' property fronts on the north side of King Street, the most heavily trafficked east-west artery in the Chappaqua hamlet. The property is situated just below the main business district intersection of King Street and North Greeley Avenue, and directly opposite the intersection of King Street and Senter Street. Although King Street is part of the State highway system, the grade and horizontal curvature of the road unfortunately exceeds the maximum standards for such factors. These design defects have greatly Town authorities and the general public have been aware of this problem for a substantial period of time. Both the 1968 Town Comprehensive Plan and the 1969 Chappaqua Business District Plan highlighted the area for remedial action. Since the identification of the problem, certain mechanisms have been employed to obtain better flow and increased safety for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. For example, on-street parking has been banned along sections of the south side of King Street. The major approach, however, has involved the minimization of driveway curb cuts opening onto King Street. This objective has been achieved by means of site plan review. Site plans, submitted by the individual property owners, have been approved only if the traffic generated by the proposed use of the property could be accommodated by existing drives.

diminished the capacity of the road to handle the large volumes of traffic generated by the change in use. Its capacity has been further decreased by the frequent and closely spaced intersections and the placement of awkward driveways. Thus, New Castle suffers severe traffic congestion and a high accident rate in the area in which the petitioners' property is located. The problem has been intensified by the rapid growth experienced in the area. As of 1977, 10 new buildings had been constructed in the preceding 6 years. This construction has added 22 stores and 15 offices to the business district.

In addition, the planning board attempted to condition its approval of certain applications on the elimination of individual drives in situations where one curb cut was capable of servicing adjacent properties owned by a single developer. 1 These devices, however, proved insufficient to achieve the stated goals and thus the board continued to seek better approaches to the problem of increasing congestion.

In 1975 Dr. Brosgol, owner of property adjacent to that of petitioners, applied for site plan approval of certain alterations which would increase the office space in his existing structure. The Brosgol application provided the board with an opportunity to effect a new solution for the elimination of driveway curb cuts. The proposal suggested by the town's planning consultant (hereinafter referred to as the consultant), required that the parking lots owned by Dr. Brosgol and the petitioners be inter-connected and that a common access drive be utilized to service both properties.

However, the board felt the need for more concrete guidance before effecting the proposal. Accordingly, it commissioned a study to develop a co-ordinated solution for traffic circulation, access and parking problems. In response, the consultant prepared a sketch analysis or policy mapping of the planning relationships among the properties on the north side of King Street (which included the properties of petitioners and Dr. Brosgol) in an "end state" format, that is, a postexecution viewpoint.

For the purposes of this appeal, I have included a less detailed 2 rendering of this sketch. The planning relationships have not been changed and are portrayed as submitted. However, the rendering encompasses properties adjacent to the borders of the plan to illustrate our lack of comprehension concerning some of the unarticulated assumptions underlying the planning relationships.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

In an accompanying memorandum, the consultant informed the board that "(t)he key to the implementation of such a scheme will be the Planning Board's insistence upon the development of parking area * * * connections between adjoining properties as a condition of site plan approval and the retention of jurisdiction to require the elimination of access drives to King Street at such time as the development of the cross connections eliminates the necessity for retaining them." After the concept had been articulated in this limited manner, the board evaluated Dr. Brosgol's proposal using the study as a standard.

At first Dr. Brosgol protested the imposition of the "driveway easement" condition. He was under the erroneous impression that the board was requiring him to acquire an easement over the petitioners' property and was therefore in negotiation with the petitioners. His protest was based on his fear that his bargaining position would be endangered by the public formulation of the condition. The board chairman explained that the board was requesting an easement from Dr. Brosgol which would only take effect when the petitioners granted a corresponding easement to Dr. Brosgol. Thus, Dr. Brosgol's negotiations were unnecessary. The connection would occur only when the board decided to effect the plan. All that was presently required was Dr. Brosgol's consent. Approval of his application was granted subject to the following conditions relevant to this appeal:

"2. That the applicant grant an easement to the owner of the adjoining property fronting on King Street lying to the southwest providing for a parking lot connection between the two parcels, such easement to be effective upon the granting of a reciprocal easement by the adjoining property owner.

"3. That the applicant will permit the consolidation of his existing driveway on King Street with the driveway of the adjoining property fronting on King Street to the southwest at such time as the Planning Board shall request it."

No attempts to isolate potential conflicts or develop specific plan elements had been When informed that the overriding consideration in evaluating their proposed site plan was the minimization of curb cuts into King Street, petitioners protested that they were being penalized, and argued that since Dr. Brosgol had no parking area 3, "combining the driveways" would permit his visitors to use the petitioners' parking facilities. The board chairman reiterated the position that only one curb cut should service both properties and requested that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Batch v. Town of Chapel Hill
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • February 7, 1989
    ...when the "proposed development is a contributing factor to the problem sought to be alleviated." Holmes v. Planning Board of Town of New Castle, 78 A.D.2d 1, 433 N.Y.S.2d 587 (1980); see Ayres v. City Council of Los Angeles, 34 Cal.2d 31, 207 P.2d 1 (1949). This test is justified by a munic......
  • Kamhi v. Planning Bd. of Town of Yorktown
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 12, 1982
    ...their property while paying taxes on it."4 We agree with the issue as framed by Special Term (cf. Holmes v. Planning Bd. of Town of New Castle, 78 A.D.2d 1, 433 N.Y.S.2d 587).5 Section 277 (subd. 1) of the Town Law provides, in pertinent part:"1. Before the approval by the planning board of......
  • Moriarty v. Planning Bd. of Village of Sloatsburg
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 2, 1986
    ...and to eliminate various mechanisms local authorities had employed to effectuate the delegation (see, Holmes v. Planning Bd. of Town of New Castle, 78 A.D.2d 1, 12, 433 N.Y.S.2d 587), the Legislature subsequently repealed the piecemeal legislation and granted all cities, towns and villages ......
  • Albany Area Builders Ass'n v. Town of Clifton Park
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 5, 1991
    ...and welfare (see, McMinn v. Town of Oyster Bay, 66 N.Y.2d 544, 549, 498 N.Y.S.2d 128, 488 N.E.2d 1240; Holmes v. Planning Bd. of Town of New Castle, 78 A.D.2d 1, 13, 433 N.Y.S.2d 587), we find the subject law to be rationally related to a legitimate government Petitioners also argue that th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT