Vill. of Ridge v. Town of Ramapo

• Decision Date: 17 October 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06965,99 A.D.3d 918,953 N.Y.S.2d 75
• Parties: In the Matter of VILLAGE OF CHESTNUT RIDGE, et al., petitioners/plaintiffs-respondents-appellants, v. TOWN OF RAMAPO, et al., respondents/defendants-appellants-respondents, et al., respondents/defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

99 A.D.3d 918

953 N.Y.S.2d 75

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06965

In the Matter of VILLAGE OF CHESTNUT RIDGE, et al., petitioners/plaintiffs-respondents-appellants,

v.TOWN OF RAMAPO, et al., respondents/defendants-appellants-respondents, et al., respondents/defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 17, 2012.

Holland & Knight LLP, New York, N.Y. (John M. Toriello and Patrick J. Sweeney of counsel), for respondents/defendants-appellants-respondents Town of Ramapo, Town Board of Town of Ramapo, Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, and Board of Appeals of Town of Ramapo.

Joseph J. Haspel, Goshen, N.Y., for respondent/defendant-appellant-respondent Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc.

Zarin & Steinmetz, White Plains, N.Y. (Michael D. Zarin and Jody T. Cross of counsel), for petitioners/plaintiffs-respondents-appellants.

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., ARIEL E. BELEN, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo dated June 15, 2004, issuing a negative declaration pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL article 8), regarding the enactment of Local Law No. 9 (2004) of the Town of Ramapo, subsequently repealed and superseded by Local Law No. 10 (2004) of the Town of Ramapo, and to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo dated November 30, 2004, issuing a negative declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act regarding the application of Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim of Radin for site plan approval to construct adult student housing, and action for a judgment declaring, among other things, that Local Law No. 9 (2004) of the Town of Ramapo is unconstitutional,(1) Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc., appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered March 1, 2010, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the amended petition which sought to annul the determination dated November 30, 2004, issuing a negative declaration with respect to the application for site plan approval to construct adult student housing on a site known as the Nike Site, and determined that Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc., did not acquire vested rights to its building permit, (2) the Town of Ramapo, the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo, the Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, and the Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo separately appeal from so much of the same judgment as granted that branch of the amended petition which sought to annul the determination issuing a negative declaration with respect to the application for site plan approval to construct adult student housing on the Nike Site, and failed to vacate a temporary restraining order dated September 11, 2007, as amended, and (3) the petitioners/plaintiffs cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same judgment as denied those branches of the petition which sought review of the determination of the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo dated June 15, 2004, enacting Local Law No. 9 (2004) of the Town of Ramapo, on the grounds that it violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the General Municipal Law, and the Municipal Home Rule Law, and because the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo lacked authority to enact that local law, and declared that Local Law No. 9 (2004) of the Town of Ramapo and the provisions of Local Law No. 10 (2004) of the Town of Ramapo, which incorporated the provisions of Local Law No. 9 (2004) of the Town of Ramapo, do not constitute impermissible spot zoning.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the sixth, seventh, ninth, and tenth decretal paragraphs thereof, and substituting therefor provisions denying that branch of the amended petition, as set forth in the thirteenth cause of action, which sought to review the determination dated November 30, 2004, issuing a negative declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act with respect to the application for site plan approval to construct adult student housing on the Nike Site, that determination is confirmed, the thirteenth cause of action is dismissed on the merits, and the temporary restraining order dated September 11, 2007, as amended, is vacated; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the petitioners/plaintiffs to the Town of Ramapo, the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo, the Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, and the Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo.

This case involves a challenge to an enactment by the Town of Ramapo of zoning provisions known as the Adult Student Housing Law (hereinafter the ASHL), permitting the erection and maintenance of multi-family housing for adult married students, pursuant to special permit, in residential zones located in unincorporated areas of the Town. First enacted in June 2004 as Local Law No. 9 (2004) of the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter LL No. 9), the ASHL affected four parcels of real property, including an area known as the Nike Site. In November 2004, LL No. 9, along with the Town's entire zoning law, was repealed, and replaced with a new zoning law—Local Law No. 10 (2004) of the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter LL No. 10)—which incorporated the provisions of LL No. 9. The petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter the petitioners) also challenged the Town's enactment of LL No. 10 and the granting of permission to construct 60 units of adult student housing on the Nike Site based, inter alia, on alleged violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL article 8; hereinafter SEQRA). The petitioners' contentions focus primarily upon the facts that LL No. 9 was adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter the Town Board) after the issuance of a negative declaration under SEQRA adopted June 15, 2004, and that the site plan for the Nike Site was approved by the Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter the Town Planning Board) after the issuance of a negative declaration adopted November 30, 2004. A negative declaration is “a written determination by a lead agency that the implementation of the action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts” (6 NYCRR 617.2[y] ).

The Nike Site was purchased in 1997 by Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim of Radin (hereinafter the Yeshiva), the predecessor-in-interest to Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. (hereinafter Mosdos). Prior to the enactment of the ASHL, the Yeshiva applied for site plan approval to use the Nike Site as a religious school and community center, with dormitories consisting of 44 units in the 12 pre-existing residential buildings. On July 3, 2003, the County of Rockland Department of Planning (hereinafter the Rockland County Planning Department) disapproved the project, citing a letter dated July 3, 2003, from the Village of New Hempstead, which described the project as a “housing development” for persons of a particular faith, and citing concerns relating to traffic and community character.

Meanwhile, the Town had authorized the preparation of an updated Comprehensive Plan, which had not been substantially revised since 1978, in order to address, inter alia, zoning in the unincorporated areas of the Town. The Town retained an independent consulting firm, which prepared a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter DGEIS). After a public hearing, a proposal for adult student housing for married students and their families while the students continued their postsecondary education was added to the final version of the Comprehensive Plan adopted on January 29, 2004. The Comprehensive Plan noted that “a critical consideration” was the need to provide “a proper balance between the need for married student housing and the community's interest in minimizing impacts to neighboring areas.”

Thereafter, in accordance with the new Comprehensive Plan, the Town considered a specific zoning amendment, later enacted as LL No. 9, to “permit adult student housing as a conditional use [by special permit] in all residential zones,” as an accessory to an approved postsecondary educational institution on the same site. With respect to this proposal, an environmental assessment form (hereinafter the EAF) was prepared, which stated that the proposal “will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment.” The EAF identified the four potential sites for such development, which included the Nike Site, and stated that “[e]ach site identified will require a complete environmental review as part of the standard site plan approval process.” With respect to the Nike Site, the EAF noted that it was adjacent to a “public school site with thick vegetative buffers to the south and west.” Since the Nike Site was an “island site” located on the Town's border with the Villages of New Hempstead and Wesley Hills, the EAF concluded that it was “not possible to create a buffer from the Village boundaries.” With respect to traffic, the EAF stated that “[s]ince the students by definition are full time, most of them will remain on site for the majority of the day,” generating fewer vehicle trips than the general population.

The Rockland County Planning Department recommended modifications to this proposed amendment to the zoning law, which were, for the most part, adopted. On June 15, 2004, the Town Board, as lead agency, issued a negative declaration, which determined that enactment of the ASHL was a Type I action for the purposes of review under SEQRA, which presumptively does not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (hereinafter EIS) ( see6 NYCRR 617.4) and, upon review of the EAF, concluded that “the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment.” After...