Walton v. Town of Brookhaven
| Decision Date | 13 February 1964 |
| Citation | 246 N.Y.S.2d 985,41 Misc.2d 798 |
| Parties | Samuel WALTON, Petitioner, v. The TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Wainwright & Matthews, Huntington, for petitioner.
Martin B. Ashare, Patchogue, for respondents.
In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner presents a determination of the planning board of the Town of Brookhaven for review.
Walton, the petitioner, owns roughly 120 acres in Stony Brook, Brookhaven Township. On August 19, 1963 he submitted a proposed subdivision map regarding this acreage to respondent planning board, in accordance with Article II of the applicable town subdivision regulations. After reviewing the map various modifications were admittedly requested. One week later a first revised map was offered. A second revision was made and offered on September 3, 1963. Then public hearings were held September 16th on the subdivision as appropriately modified, but on October 7, 1963 the board resolved to deny approval in these words:
Respondents further add now that they felt that approval of this map would 'not be consistent with sound planning' when upzoning was being considered by the town board.
It has not been denied that petitioner's preliminary layout as revised complied with all requirements set forth in the subdivision regulations as well as those additionally specified as necessary for final plat approval (Subd.Regs., Article III). On the other hand, the board here displays these regulations and points to the fact that two steps are required for approval of any subdivision plan. Article II deals with the preliminary layout, and states at section 200 that 'Approval of the preliminary layout does not constitute an approval of the final plat. * * *' Final approval is covered in Article III, section 300 (the second step): the final plat '* * * include(s) the recommendations resulting from the Planning Board review of the preliminary layout * * *', which then '* * * becomes the basis for construction of the subdivision * * *' after '* * * approval by the Planning Board * * *' Respondent has therefore moved to dismiss the petition as premature and insufficient, since no fianl decision has been had, and alternativelv because the entire matter is subject to a rehearing (CPLR § 7801, subd. ).
Where an adminstrative determination may be reconsidered pursuant to statutory authority, it is not amenable to an Article 78 proceeding (CPLR § 7801, subd. , supra). Review of final action only is envisaged, with citation on this point so extensive as to render example unnecessary. But this qualification of review normally arises as to decisions of town boards or other legislative or administrative units not otherwise specifically provided for by statute. However, a planning board's decision, whether actually final or not, is not subject to such qualification for review. Section 282 of the Town Law provides that 'Any person or persons, jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the planning board concerning such plat or the changing of the zoning regulations of such land * * * may have the decision reviewed by a special term of the supreme court in the manner provided by article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules * * *'. (Emphasis supplied.) This section provides for a particular, clear exception to the limitation on review found in CPLR § 7801, subd. (1), based upon the availability of a rehearing.
We can discover what is meant by the reference to 'such plat' in section 282 of the Town Law (supra) by referring to the first and fourth sentences of section 276 (subd. 1) thereof: 'For the purpose of providing for the future growth and development of the town * * * such town board may by resolution authorize and empower the planning board to approve plats showing lots, blocks or sites * * * The planning board may thereupon approve, modify and approve, or disapprove such plat.' (Emphasis supplied.)
The existence of a planning board in the first instance is provided for by Town Law, section 272, and its authorized powers are spelled out in succeeding sections. In fact, respondent's subdivision regulations acknowledge adoption pursuant to section 272. Tracing the limits of a planning board's powers we have already observed (section 276, supra) that it can do any one of three things with regard to a plat submitted: it may 'approve, modify and approve, or disapprove such plat.' By the use of the disjunctive 'or' there is no allowance made for this planning board's reaction to this petitioner's plat--it was modified and disapproved. Such conduct is simply not within the board's jurisdiction. As a statutory creation, respondent's action cannot exceed the scope of creating statutes nor can the town board unilaterally add to or otherwise extend this scope. In this case respondent has thus acted outside the furthest limits prescribed by the Town Law, and its action must be deemed a nullity. A plan reading of the section 276 must lead to the conclusion that where a plat is modified it must then be approved (assuming compliance with modifications or revisions). Apparently disapproval is required at first, and not after an applicant has incurred expense and expended effort to meet recommendations made upon primary submission of a plan. Moreover, referring to the town's regulations in this case, the final plat and its approval follow almost as a formality. Section 300 of the Subdivision Regulations refers to the final plat as the one, fully documented and charted, which has obtained the approval of the planning board. No indication is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sun Beach Real Estate Development Corp. v. Anderson
...of the layout of a final plat that conforms to the modifications prescribed by the board (see, e.g., Matter of Walton v. Town of Brookhaven, 41 Misc.2d 798, 246 N.Y.S.2d 985; Matter of Villa-Laken Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Eastchester, 138 N.Y.S.2d 362; Great Western Sav. & Loan Asso......
-
Rouse v. O'Connell
...Industries, Inc., 60 Misc.2d 566, 303 N.Y.S.2d 461, aff'd on other grds., 34 A.D.2d 826, 312 N.Y.S.2d 627; Walton v. Town of Brookhaven, 41 Misc.2d 798, 246 N.Y.S.2d 985). The instant review is thus within the The petition is granted. ...
-
Fallon v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Town of East Hampton
...determination that such right already exists (see Roto Realty, Inc. v. Volkman, 49 Misc.2d 506, 267 N.Y.S.2d 683; Walton v. Town of Brookhaven, 41 Misc.2d 798, 246 N.Y.S.2d 985). If there is no permit it could be difficult to visualize a vested right, especially one that might withstand a s......
-
Long Island Pine Barrens Soc., Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven
...by an aggrieved party (see, 5 Ziegler, Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning § 66.06 [4th ed.]; Matter of Walton v. Town of Brookhaven, 41 Misc.2d 798, 800, 246 N.Y.S.2d 985 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County]. Such a construction imports to the language of section 282--that "any decision of the p......