Soule v. Town of Colonie

• Decision Date: 30 June 1983
• Citation: 95 A.D.2d 979,464 N.Y.S.2d 576
• Parties: In the Matter of Eldress Gertrude SOULE et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF COLONIE et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 576

464 N.Y.S.2d 576

95 A.D.2d 979

In the Matter of Eldress Gertrude SOULE et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF COLONIE et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

June 30, 1983.

Helm, Shapiro, Ayers, Anito & Aldrich, Albany (Douglas H. Ward, Albany, of counsel), for appellants.

Susan Marie Tatro, Newtonville, for respondent Town of Colonie.

Robert G. Lyman, Albany, for respondents Albany County et al.

William A. Bacas, Glens Falls, for respondent Capital Land Sports, Inc.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and SWEENEY, CASEY, MIKOLL and WEISS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered May 13, 1983 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul respondents' determinations approving and funding the construction of a professional baseball stadium.

Petitioners consist of the eight surviving members of a religious sect known as the "Shakers". Two of their number are officers of various umbrella organizations governing the sect and controlling all of its property. In addition, these two officers, together with three men, are trustees of the Shaker Central Trust Fund. Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding for an order (a) annulling the determinations and actions of respondents Town of Colonie and County of Albany regarding the development of a professional baseball stadium on a site northwest of the intersection of county Route 157 and Albany Shaker Road in the Town of Colonie; (b) requiring respondents to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and applicable regulations (6 NYCRR 617.11, 617.12, 617.13); (c) requiring respondents to inform the public of the actions taken and conduct public hearings pursuant to said statutes and regulations; and (d) awarding money damages and counsel fees pursuant to Federal law (U.S.Code, tit. 42, § 1983 et seq.). Special Term rejected respondents' challenge to petitioners' standing in the interests of judicial economy and, upon the merits, granted respondents' motion to dismiss the petition upon the grounds that petitioners were barred by laches and that the decisions to proceed with the project were neither arbitrary nor capricious. Special Term further rejected the contention that the town's zoning law had been violated.

It is clear that petitioners raise issues involving environmental concerns, as well as an ownership interest in the property adjoining the subject site, sufficient to qualify their standing to sue (see Niagara Recycling v. Town Bd. of Town of Niagara, 83 A.D.2d 335, 341, 443 N.Y.S.2d 951). We further agree that the proposed use of the site will not constitute a nuisance or a violation of the town's zoning law. The parcel is classified as undeveloped, a classification which allows municipal parks and athletic fields. Since the stadium is to be owned and operated by respondents, it may be deemed noncommercial (see 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Laws and Practice §§ 9.02-9.03, pp. 425-429; § 11.05, pp. 511-513). Nor is there anything in the record which would require this court to enjoin respondents' proposed activities as a nuisance (see Copart Inds. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 41 N.Y.2d 564, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169, 362 N.E.2d 968). However, we disagree with the conclusion reached by Special Term that the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches. While, indeed, widespread print and electronic media coverage disseminated a considerable number of news stories commencing in December, 1982, it cannot be said that the two and one-half month delay in commencing this proceeding on March 29, 1982 should be a bar, despite the fact that work and vast expenditures of both time and money were made by respondents during that period of time.

The issue before this court is thus distilled to whether respondents' actions in the issuance of a "negative declaration" were arbitrary and capricious and not in compliance with the requirements of article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (SEQRA) and the associated regulations of the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation (6 NYCRR Part 617). This court's scope of review is limited to whether the determinations of the respective legislatures of respondents County of Albany and Town of Colonie were made in accordance with proper procedures and were not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. Within these well defined and generally accepted guidelines for appellate review, examination of the record discloses the following: On March 29, 1924, the United Society of Shakers sold approximately 773.5 acres of the 3,000 or more acres originally owned by it to one Thomas Bergan for $60,000, reserving only a parcel measuring 176 by 205 feet comprising its cemetery. The deed contained absolutely no restrictions on future use of the land. On December 22, 1928, respondent County of Albany purchased this tract from Bergan and thereafter constructed on this land, and other contiguous parcels acquired, a jail, an airport and a nursing home. During March, 1973, an irregular shaped tract comprising over 700 acres and containing some 27 original buildings constructed by the Shakers in three separate clusters was entered in the National Register of Historic Places and entitled the Watervliet Shaker Historic District.

The zoning laws of respondent Town of Colonie permitted the land to be used for residential, business and commercial purposes, and a portion was designated as semipublic open land. State law does not contain injunctive power designed to preclude land use; rather, the purpose of such power is to permit the public interest to be represented by clearly stated policy with respect to land use and development. There is thus nothing to preclude owners of land from exercising their right to develop their property. Indeed, immediately across the highway and facing the cemetery plot, an extensive office building and commercial development subdivision has commenced.

In late December, 1982, respondents, after considering various sites for the erection of a stadium for use by a franchise of a professional minor league baseball team, decided upon the instant location as a joint project by the town and county. An engineering and planning firm was engaged to prepare a detailed investigation and environmental assessment report, conceptual design plans, and an itemized proposed budget. The Albany County Executive submitted the environmental assessment form for study and consideration by respondents. Included in the report were letters from the Town of Colonie historian and the president of the Shaker Heritage...