Rehab. Support Servs., Inc. v. Town of Esopus
| Decision Date | 08 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | 1:16–CV–0307 (GTS/DJS) |
| Parties | REHABILITATION SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF ESOPUS, NEW YORK ; and Town of Esopus Zoning Board of Appeals, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
FREEMAN HOWARD, P.C., OF COUNSEL: PAUL M. FREEMAN, ESQ., MATTHEW J. GRIESEMER, ESQ., 441 East Allen Street, P.O. Box 1328, Hudson, New York 12534, Counsel for Plaintiff.
MORITT, HOCK & HAMROFF, LLP, OF COUNSEL: ROBERT L. SCHONFELD, ESQ., 400 Garden City Plaza, Suite 202, Garden City, New York 11530, Co–Counsel for Plaintiff.
LEMIRE, JOHNSON & HIGGINS, LLC, OF COUNSEL: GREGG T. JOHNSON, ESQ., APRIL J. LAWS, ESQ., 2534 Route 9, P.O. Box 2485, Malta, New York 12020, Counsel for Defendants.
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this discrimination action filed by Rehabilitation Support Services, Inc. ("Plaintiff") against the Town of Esopus, New York, and the Town of Esopus Zoning Board of Appeals ("Defendants"), is Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). (Dkt. No. 13.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges as follows.
Plaintiff is a not-for-profit mental health and rehabilitation agency whose mission is to enrich and empower the lives of consumers by providing services and opportunities for meaningful emotional, social, vocational and educational growth. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 7 [Pl.'s Compl.].) Plaintiff seeks to establish a sober living residence for women recovering from alcoholism and/or substance abuse at a two-acre property located at 141 Prospect Street in the Town of Esopus, County of Ulster, State of New York. (Id. , ¶ 1.) The proposed residence will house 16 women in a two-story community residence and will provide safe, supervised, congregate housing with the goal of maintaining an abstinent lifestyle. (Id. , ¶¶ 10–11.) The residence is not a detox facility, and no nursing or medical services will be provided there. (Id. , ¶ 11.) Residents will have already completed a long-term treatment program and will be transitioning to a sober living environment before fully integrating back into society. (Id. ) The women at the residence will live together as a family and will cook together, maintain the residence together, and assist each other in their recovery from alcoholism and/or substance abuse. (Id. , ¶ 13.) The proposed residence will serve people who have disabilities, that make it difficult for them to socialize, hold employment and live with their families independently. (Id. , ¶ 14.)
Both the Ulster County Mental Health Department and the Substance Abuse Subcommittee of the Community Services Board identified the need for a community residence in Ulster County that would serve women exclusively and issued a Request for Proposal ("RFP") to develop a residence for women's community residential services. (Id. , ¶ 15.) In the RFP, Ulster County noted that the "[l]ocation of [the] Residence will be important [sic] A populated location or a site located between 2 populated areas will be considered more desirable than a rural locale." (Id. , ¶ 16.) The site proposed by Plaintiff at 141 Prospect Street fits the description of the type of site that Ulster County stated it desired in its RFP. (Id. , ¶ 17.)
The Town has a zoning code that regulates where residences and facilities can be located. (Id. , ¶ 18.) Plaintiff's proposed residence is located within the Town's R–12 zoning district ("R–12 District"). (Id. , ¶ 19.) The R–12 District is described as a moderate-density zoning district that allows, as of right, single-family dwellings on at least 1/3 of an acre. (Id. , ¶ 20.) In the previous version of the Town's Code, which was filed with the New York State Department on September 5, 1980, the Code defined "family" as follows:
One or more persons occupying a dwelling unit as a single-nonprofit housekeeping unit. More than five persons, exclusive of domestic servants, not related by blood, marriage or adoption, shall not be considered to constitute a family.
(Id. , ¶ 21.) Sometime between 1980 and 2012, the Town amended the Code to remove the definition of "family." (Id. , ¶ 22.) Accordingly, the term "family" is purposefully not defined or otherwise limited in the current version of the Town's Code. (Id. )
Among the uses permitted in the R–12 District with a special use permit are multi-family apartments and townhouses, two-family residences, alcoholism and other rehabilitation centers, group homes, halfway houses, nursery schools, pre-school centers, and child day-care centers. (Id. , ¶ 23.) A "convalescent home" is not permitted in the R–12 District. (Id. , ¶ 24.) A "convalescent home" is defined in the Town's Code as a facility that provides "nursing care." (Id. , ¶ 25.) Plaintiff's proposed residence will not provide nursing care. (Id. , ¶ 26.)
After Plaintiff informed the Town of its intentions to use the property located at 141 Prospect Street as a sober-living residence for women, the Town instructed Plaintiff to come to an informal session of the Town's Planning Board. (Id. , ¶ 27.) At this informal session, Plaintiff was instructed to submit an "informal application" to the Planning Board for its review and Plaintiff did so. (Id. , ¶ 28.) In a letter faxed to Plaintiff's counsel on June 7, 2015, Timothy Keefe, the Town's Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer, stated that, "after careful review of the information provided by the applicant, a review of the Building Code of NY and the Town of Esopus Zoning Code, the proposed construction of a single family dwelling for the purpose of Chemical Dependence Rehabilitation will not require a Special Use Permit or Site Plan approval." (Id. , ¶ 29.) However, after Mr. Keefe sent his letter to Plaintiff's counsel, community opposition to Plaintiff's proposed residence arose. (Id. , ¶ 30.) In response to this opposition, Mr. Keefe sent another letter to Plaintiff's counsel, dated June 15, 2015, and did an "about-face" by stating that he needed to review Plaintiff's application further and asked its counsel to "please disregard my privious [sic] correspondence." (Id. , ¶ 31.)
On June 18, 2015, after publicly acknowledging that it "had no legal authority over whether or not [the proposed residence] was permitted under the [Town's] Code," the Town Board nonetheless proceeded to take public comments from members of the community opposed to the proposed residence. (Id. , ¶ 32.) On August 10, 2015, Mr. Keefe issued an opinion letter finding that Plaintiff's proposed residence was not a single-family dwelling but a "convalescent home" under the Town's Code and, therefore, was not permitted in the R–12 District. (Id. , ¶ 33.) Plaintiff did not provide Mr. Keefe with any new information from the time he issued his initial determination to the time he issued his final determination. (Id. , ¶ 34.) Similarly, at no time during that period did Plaintiff provide Mr. Keefe with information that nursing care would be provided at the residence. (Id. , ¶ 35.) Accordingly, it is reasonable to believe that Mr. Keefe changed his mind solely because of community opposition to Plaintiff's proposed residence. (Id. , ¶ 37.)
After receiving Mr. Keefe's final determination, Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA"). (Id. , ¶ 38.) Plaintiff's appeal was considered at a hearing held by the ZBA on October 20, 2015, where Plaintiff's counsel explained the nature of the proposed residence. (Id. , ¶ 39.) At no time did Plaintiff provide any information to the ZBA demonstrating that the proposed residence was going to be providing nursing care; indeed, Plaintiff's counsel advised the ZBA that the residence would not be providing either nursing care or any type of medical care. (Id. , ¶ 40.) Many neighboring residents came to the public hearing and wrote letters to the ZBA to object to the proposed residence. (Id. , ¶ 41.)
The ZBA ultimately determined that the proposed residence is not a "single family dwelling" because "it would not be compatible, in terms of its size and operating characteristics, with the predominantly one family dwellings that surround the ... property" and that, even though no nursing care was to be provided, the residence is a "convalescent home" not permitted in the R–12 District. (Id. , ¶ 58.) The ZBA's written determination also makes repeated reference to the community's opposition to the proposed residence. (Id. , ¶ 42.) Specifically, the ZBA's determination discussed the following five complaints made by neighboring residents related to the proposed residence: (1) the size of the proposed residence as well as the number of residents who would live there; (2) the fact that residents of the proposed residence would pay rent and allegedly would have some counseling and supervision; (3) speculation that the proposed residence's "no-smoking" policy "will cause program participants to congregate at the public frontage of the site, adjacent to a narrow roadway, and is dangerous on that particular road"; (4) the fact that residents of the proposed residence may reside there for only five months; and (5) the neighboring residents expressed concern about (a) "a lack of any criminal background check," (b) that the proposed residence would be an "Open Campus," and (c) that "participants of unknown criminal background will be wandering through the surrounding neighborhood of one family dwellings which is populated by many children." (Id. , ¶¶ 44, 47–49.)
None of the arguments raised by the neighboring residents are proper or usual considerations made by a municipality in determining whether a residence is a "single family dwelling" for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. N.Y.S. Pub. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc.
...based on the abstention doctrine is ... considered as a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).’ " Rehab. Support Servs., Inc. v. Town of Esopus, 226 F.Supp.3d 113, 125 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting City of N.Y. v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., 550 F.Supp.2d 332, 341 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) ). For this re......
-
Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v. Waste Mgmt. of N.Y., L.L.C.
...based on the abstention doctrine is ... considered as a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)." Rehab. Support Servs., Inc. v. Town of Esopus, N. Y. , 226 F. Supp. 3d 113, 125 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). "A plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction ha......
-
Pike Co. v. Universal Concrete Prods., Inc.
...Fed.Appx. 68 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 372, 196 L.Ed.2d 290 (2016) ; see Rehab. Support Servs., Inc. v. Town of Esopus, 226 F.Supp.3d 113, 125 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (" ‘A motion to dismiss based on the abstention doctrine is ... considered as a motion made pursuant to ......
-
Young Am's Found. v. Stenger
... ... account of the events designed to support [the] College ... Progressives.” Id. ¶ ... Mergent Servs. v ... Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir ... F.3d at 211 (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 ... U.S. 330, 338 (2016)) ... 332, 335 ... (2006); see also Rehab. Support Servs., Inc. v. Town of ... ...