The Town Board determined that the Plaintiffs’ requested rezoning of 45-acres from Agricultural to Rural Residential to allow for a 32-home residential subdivision was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan that designated the area as predominantly agricultural in order to preserve “open space” and the agricultural integrity of the Town. The Appellate Court quickly dismissed the Plaintiffs’ argument that the Town exceeded its authority under Town Law §261 when it enacted the zoning ordinance. The Court noted that the state enabling statute specifically provides authority to towns to enact zoning laws to “regulate…open spaces, the density of population, and the location and use of buildings…for…residence” to promote the general welfare of the community. The Court also stated that the record established that “the subdivision restrictions in the agricultural district were in furtherance of the legitimate governmental interest of preserving the agricultural integrity of the Town and that, in permitting housing subdivisions to be constructed in areas zoned as rural residential but not in agricultural districts, there is a reasonable relation between the end sought to be achieved and the means used to achieve that end.”
Turning the Plaintiffs’ claim that their right to substantive due process was violated by the denial of their application for a rezoning, the Court said that the Plaintiff’s lacked the required property interest necessary to bring this claim, since they had no vested right or legitimate claim of entitlement to develop the property in the manner they desired. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Town’s actions did not constitute “egregious official conduct [so as] to be arbitrary in the constitutional sense.” (citing to Bower Associates v. Town of Pleasant Valley, 2 N.Y.3d 617 at 628).
Schlossin v. Town of Marilla, 2008 WL 275028 (N.Y. A.D. 4 Dept. 2/1/2008).
The opinion can also be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ad4/court/Decisions/2008/02-01-08/PDF/1267.pdf
Categories:
