Plaintiffs, owners of a 15 acre parcel, commenced an action in federal court against the Town and the Town board in connection with the Town’s enactment of a local law which upzoned their property from a minimum two-acre lot size to a five-acre lot size, alleging that doing so violated their equal protection rights. The plaintiffs alleged that they were treated differently than an adjacent property which was upzoned to a three-acre lot size. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that the local law was void for failure to comply with the referral requirements of N.Y. General Municipal Law 239-m. Prior to the enactment of the local law, the Town sought numerous time to purchase the plaintiff’s property, and all offers were rejected as inadequate. The crux of the plaintiff’s equal protection claim is that as a result of their refusal to sell, the Town, intentionally, and with ill will and illegitimate animus, singled them out for selective upzoning. The Town moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion, holding that the Town had a rational basis for its decision, namely that the adjacent property was part of a larger subdivision development that had an agricultural easement and a voluntary reduction in the potential residential build-out. The Court also noted that the rezoning was done in accordance with the comprehensive plan. In addition, the court found that there was no evidence that this decision was motivated by malice or ill will. Since the Court dismissed the federal claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim, to wit, compliance with the General Municipal Law, since to do so would require the determination of additional factual and legal issues.
Toussie v. Town Board of East Hampton, 2010 WL 597469 (E.D.N.Y. 2/17/2010)
The opinion can be accessed here
