In the Matter of Davies Farm, LLC v. Planning Board of Town of Clarkstown
| Decision Date | 09 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-06794,2007-06794 |
| Citation | 864 N.Y.S.2d 84,54 A.D.3d 757,2008 NY Slip Op 6830 |
| Parties | In the Matter of DAVIES FARM, LLC, Appellant, v. PLANNING BOARD OF TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the Supreme Court properly rejected its claim that the determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Clarkstown (hereafter the Planning Board) to impose a fee in lieu of parkland dedication was arbitrary and capricious because it was made at the time of final subdivision plat approval, when the Planning Board had already granted preliminary subdivision plat approval without making any findings of recreational need. Nothing in either Town Law §§ 276 or 277 circumscribed the Planning Board's authority to impose the fee as a condition of final subdivision approval where it had already granted preliminary subdivision approval without a finding of recreational need. Further, under the circumstances of this case, the petitioner was aware of the Planning Board's procedure to make a recreational need finding and recreational fee determination where, as here, the petitioner was told, in November 2005, prior to receiving preliminary subdivision plat approval, that the fee would be imposed on their 23-lot subdivision, and where the same procedure was followed by the Planning Board in connection with the petitioner's development on a neighboring parcel. Therefore, the Planning Board's determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious, nor affected by error of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court, properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding (see generally Matter of Bayswater Realty & Capital Corp. v Planning Bd. of Town of Lewisboro, 76 NY2d 460 [1990]; Matter of Joy Builders, Inc. v Town of Clarkstown, 54 AD3d 761 [2008] [decided herewith]; Matter of International Innovative Tech. Group Corp. v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ostojic v. Gee
...926, 901 N.Y.S.2d 331 ; Matter of Kearney v. Kita, 62 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 879 N.Y.S.2d 584 ; Matter of Davies Farm, LLC v. Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 54 A.D.3d 757, 758, 864 N.Y.S.2d 84 ). The court will substitute its judgment for that of a planning board only when “the determinati......
-
Nicolai v. McLaughlin
...117 ; Matter of Kaywood Props., Ltd. v. Forte, 69 A.D.3d 628, 629–630, 892 N.Y.S.2d 182 ; Matter of Davies Farm, LLC v. Planning Bd. of Town of Clarks town, 54 A.D.3d 757, 758–759, 864 N.Y.S.2d 84 ). " ‘A decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent ......
-
Ramapo Pinnacle Props., LLC v. Vill. of Airmont Planning Bd.
...(see Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732 ; Matter of Davies Farm, LLC v. Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 54 A.D.3d 757, 758, 864 N.Y.S.2d 84 ; Matter of Gallo v. Rosell, 52 A.D.3d 514, 515, 859 N.Y.S.2d 675 ; Matter of Halperin v. City of New......
-
Legacy At Fairways, LLC v. Planning Bd. of Town of Victor
...is not arbitrary or capricious, nor is it affected by an error of law ( see generally Matter of Davies Farm, LLC v. Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 54 A.D.3d 757, 758, 864 N.Y.S.2d 84, lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 713, 873 N.Y.S.2d 268, 901 N.E.2d 762). It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so ......