In re of Citizens United To Protect Our Neighborhood-Hillcrest & Sharon Doucette
| Decision Date | 13 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 031155/2022,Action Nos.1,2 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of CITIZENS UNITED TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD-HILLCREST and SHARON DOUCETTE, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. THE TOWN OF RAMAPO, THE TOWN OF RAMAPO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, THE TOWN OF RAMAPO PLANNING BOARD, BLUEFIELD EXTENSION LLC, and SUNSHINE GARDENS REALTY LLC. Respondents-Defendants. For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and a Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to Section 3001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, In the Matter of the Application of CITIZENS UNITED TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD-HILLCREST and SHARON DOUCETTE, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and a Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to Section 3001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, v. THE TOWN OF RAMAPO, THE TOWN OF RAMAPO PLANNING BOARD, BLUEFIELD EXTENSION LLC, and SUNSHINE GARDENS REALTY LLC. Respondents-Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Unpublished Opinion
DECISION AND ORDER
The following papers, numbered NYSCEF documents 1-55, were considered in connection with an Article 78 Petition filed by Petitioners on March 21, 2022 (Index No. 031155/2022 "Action 1"), seeking to annul, vacate and set aside the use variance and each of the area variances approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on or about February 10, 2022.
The following papers, numbered NYSCEF documents 1-35, were considered in connection with an Article 78 Petition filed by Petitioners on June 12, 2022 (Index No. 032462/2022 "Action 2"), seeking to annul, vacate and set aside the July 13, 2021, Negative Declaration ("Neg. Dec.) determination and the grant of subdivision approval by the Planning Board, dated May 13, 2022.
Upon the foregoing papers, the Court now rules as follows:
INTRODUCTION
On or about March 21, 2022, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, Citizens United To Protect Our Neighborhood-Hillcrest ("CUPON") and Sharon Doucette ("Petitioners") commenced an Article 78 proceeding against Respondents-Defendants, The Town of Ramapo, The Town of Ramapo Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA"), The Town of Ramapo Planning Board ("PB"), Bluefield Extension, LLC ("Bluefield"), and Sunshine Gardens Realty LLC ("Sunshine") (together "Respondents" or "Applicants"). (Index No. 031155/2022 "Action 1")
On or about June 12, 2022, a new petition was filed by the very same Petitioners against the very same Respondents, excluding the ZBA. (Index No. 032462/2022)("Action 2"). Answers were filed on July 29, 2022 (Action 1) and January 12, 2023 (Action 2). Opposition to the relief requested in the Petitions were filed on December 9, 2022, and January 12 2023, with reply papers submitted by Petitioners on or about March 3, 2023.
These two actions are the latest in a string of actions revolving around the ZBA's approval of various "use variances" and "area variances" and the PB issuance of a Negative SEQRA Declaration ("Neg Dec."), all related to a project commonly referred to as the "Bluefield Extension" Project (the "Project").
The current Petitions seek to annul, vacate and set aside the use variance and each of the area variances approved by the ZBA on or about February 10, 2022 (the "2022 variance decisions") and to annul, vacate and set aside the July 13, 2021, Neg. Dec. determination and the grant of subdivision approval by the PB, dated May 13, 2022.
Given the complete identity of parties, and the intrinsically, intertwined underlying facts and legal issues, the Court decides both petitions together, as further set forth herein.
In 2012, Bluefield's predecessor filed applications for subdivision approval and variances for ten dwelling units and ten accessory units.
On January 16, 2013, the PB adopted a Neg. Deci, for this Project. This Negative Declaration was never annulled vacated or invalidated, and remains in effect. E. Deane Leonard v. Planning Bd. of Town of Union Vale, 136 A.D.3d 868, 870, 26 N.Y.S.3d 293, 297 (2d Dept. 2016).
The ZBA granted the first requested use variance on January 30, 2014, and the PB subsequently granted subdivision approval.
On February 9, 2016, Mr. Grunwald acquired the site through his wholly owned entities, Bluefield and Sunshine. The prior subdivision approval had, by the time of the Grunwald purchase, expired by operation of law. When the Applicants sought to obtain reapproval of the subdivision, he was required to and did reduce the total number of dwelling units to 15 (10 dwelling units and five accessory apartments) as a means of addressing concerns raised by opponents of the Project. The Applicants at that time also sought area variances, which the ZBA approved on or about February 1, 2017.
Subsequently, although Applicants contended that the prior approvals and variances remained valid, Applicants agreed to apply again for the same variances and approvals anew, at what Applicants contend was a considerable cost, including extensive engineering and professional fees. Applicants appeared before the PB prior to seeking the variances on or about May 7, 2019, at which time the PB issued its Neg. Dec.
What followed were several years of litigation, including two prior Article 78 proceedings, over the various "reissued" approvals, that resulted in this Court's Decisions and Orders dated January 6, 2020 (Index No. 000506/2018) and May 3, 2020 (Index No. 32128/2020) which granted the Petitions on procedural grounds (the "Prior Decisions and Orders.")
The properties that are the subject of Action 1 and Action 2 presently before the Court (122, 126, 128 and 130 Union Road (the "Site")) is the same Site that was the subject of the two prior Article 78 proceedings, resulting in the Prior Decisions and Orders. The Court hereby incorporates the facts set forth in those Decisions and Orders as if fully set forth herein.
Following this Court's 2020 and 2021 Decisions, proceedings before the ZBA and the PB were recommenced with the March 22, 2021, submission of an application by Respondents for subdivision and sketch plat approval. This application was submitted along with a Full Environment Assessment Form ("FEAF") Part I, dated March 19, 2021, prepared by the Project's sponsor, Civil Tec Engineering &Surveying PC ("Civ Tec") which concluded that the Project had no potential environmental impacts.
On March 26, 2021, the Applicants submitted a subdivision plan to the PB, including ten maps upon which were notations as to the use variance and area variances that would be required. The Applicants also submitted to the PB a fire truck turning template, a fire flow availability calculations' chart, a stormwater pollution prevention plan and a water report, all prepared by Civ Tec. The proposed use of the "X.3" use group for the Project's bulk requirements was approved by Ian Smith ("Smith"), the Town's Building Inspector.
In mid-April 2021, the Town's Fire Inspector, Department of Public Works ("DPW") and Smith submitted their respective comments. Specifically, the Fire Inspector had no comments; the DPW noted that its comments had previously been addressed; and the Building Inspector submitted comments and identified the variances which would be required for the Project.
On April 21, 2021, the Community Design Review Committee ("CDRC"), essentially the architectural review board, met to review the application, having received the application materials and the local agency comment letters in advance. The CDRC deemed the Project a "Type 1" action under SEQRA which designation required the Project to undergo a coordinated review by a lead agency to determine whether the Project would have a significant environmental impact.
On June 7, 2021, the PB disseminated its Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency ("NOI Packet") to other involved local agencies. The NOI Packet included: (1) the sketch plat application, (2) the FEAF Part I, (3) a narrative from attorney Terry Rice, counsel for the Applicants, (4) a narrative from Civ Tec, (5) the fire flow availability calculations chart, (6) the water report, (7) the stormwater pollution prevention plan, (8) the "Lange Report" (discussed in more detail below), (9) the subdivision plan, and (10) the proposed drainage and existing drainage area maps prepared by Civ Tec.
The opening pages of the NOI Packet make clear that the Project requires use and area variances and that the requested relief is "identical" to the Applicant's prior applications, all of which likewise required such variances. The proposed Project consists of a four-lot subdivision with 10 dwelling units with a combination of two and three family semi-attached residences with five accessory apartments. Two and three family semi-attached units are not permitted in the R-15 zone. Since the zone in which the properties are located is an R-15 zoning district, a use variance is required for the Project to proceed. Multiple area variances are similarly required.
The virtually identical application was previously approved by the PB, including the issuance of a Neg. Dec., on May 7, 2019, and subdivision approval on November 20, 2020. By Decision and Order dated March 3, 2021, this Court again annulled the Town's approvals on procedural grounds.
The submitted and circulated NOI Packet included a report from former Town Planner John Lange of Lange Planning and Consulting (the "Lange Report"). The PB had reviewed this report when it previously issued the first Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA. The Lange Report notes the undisputed facts that the Property consists of 1.05 acres and is located in the Town's R-15 zone. The Lange report...
To continue reading
Request your trial