Otto v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency

• Decision Date: 30 July 1998
• Citation: 676 N.Y.S.2d 330,252 A.D.2d 898
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 7265 In the Matter of Walter E. OTTO II, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 330

676 N.Y.S.2d 330

252 A.D.2d 898, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 7265

In the Matter of Walter E. OTTO II, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

July 30, 1998.

Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General (Lawrence A. Rappoport of counsel), Albany, for appellant.

Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes P.C. (Gary C. Hobbs of counsel), Glens Falls, for respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., MIKOLL, WHITE, CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ.

GRAFFEO, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered July 25, 1997 in Franklin County, which granted petitioner's application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, to annul a determination of respondent finding that petitioner's boathouse is in violation of respondent's shoreline setback regulation.

In July 1984, petitioner erected a two-story structure at the shoreline of his property located on Clear Pond in the Town of Franklin, Franklin County. The first floor was utilized to store boats and boating equipment, while the second floor contained a sectional couch, two pinball machines, several armchairs, carpeting, wood paneling, a table with chairs, a woodburning stove and four built-in bed frames with mattresses. The structure did not have kitchen or bathroom facilities. In May 1990, respondent issued a notice of violation of Executive Law § 806(1)(a)(2) in that the structure was located less than 75 feet from the mean highwater mark of Clear Pond. After a hearing, respondent's Enforcement Committee found that the structure did not qualify as an exempt "boathouse" as defined by 9 NYCRR 575.4(c) and was, therefore, in violation of respondent's shoreline setback restrictions. Petitioner filed an administrative appeal and the Enforcement Committee's determination was affirmed by respondent in July 1990.

In October 1990, petitioner commenced a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action which challenged respondent's determination. Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated the determination, finding that the structure was in compliance with the regulatory definition of a "boathouse" as defined by 9 NYCRR 575.4(c). Respondent appeals, contending that its determination was rationally based and that Supreme Court erred in granting the petition.

Judicial review of administrative determinations is limited to whether substantial evidence supported the agency's determination and whether it was arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Town of Poughkeepsie v. Zagata, 245 A.D.2d 672, 664 N.Y.S.2d 500, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 809, 670 N.Y.S.2d 403, 693 N.E.2d 750; Matter of Kenneth VV. v. Wing, 235 A.D.2d 1007, 652 N.Y.S.2d 894). Further, although a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency, an irrational determination must be annulled (see, Paramount Communications v. Gibraltar Cas. Co., 90 N.Y.2d 507, 663 N.Y.S.2d 133, 685 N.E.2d 1214).

Respondent's shoreline setback restriction requires that all buildings in excess of 100 square feet, other than docks or boathouses, must be set back 75 feet from the...