Plaintiff brought an Article 78 proceeding after the Planning Board denied his application for the removal of a restriction on a plat map. Plaintiff’s lots were designated “Open Area A” and “Open Area B” which meant the lots were not approved for building lots. When plaintiff sought to amend the map so he could build, the Planning Board determined that the lots were to remain open space in perpetuity.
The appellate Court noted that planning boards have the authority to restrict development so long as parties are given notice. Here, the Court determined that the Planning Board failed to clearly state that the property was only intended for open space in the chain of title. When the planning board previously approved the subdivision in question, the planning board had failed to act in conformity with the requirements for a cluster development, and therefore, notwithstanding the designation of the map as a “cluster plan,” a cluster development could not have been created. As such, the Court determined that the Planning Board lacked rational basis when it denied plaintiff’s application on the ground that development was prohibited on the subject lots due to their inclusion in a cluster development . Further, the Court found that the Planning Board lacked rational basis when it determined that removing the no building restriction would be detrimental to the health and safety of the public.
Fuentes v. Planning Bd., of Village of Woodbury, 2011 WL 834184 (2 Dept 3/8/2011)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2011/D30282.pdf
