NY Appellate Court Holds Law Rezoning Property was Not Arbitrary, Unreasonable, or Unlawful

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq,

Petitioners were the owners and managers of real property that was adjacent to a 19.5–acre parcel that had been classified as a Business and Technology District (“BTD”) since 1989. The petitioners commenced this combined proceeding pursuant to article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, to challenge Local Law No. 3, which rezoned the adjacent BTD property to a high density residential district. Specifically, petitioners alleged that Local Law No. 3 was adopted in violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), was not consistent with village’s comprehensive plan, and constituted illegal spot zoning. The Supreme Court, Tompkins County, entered summary judgment in village’s favor, and dismissing the petition.

Here, the record confirmed that prior to enacting Local Law No. 3, the Board and the Village Planning Board, held a number of meetings during which public comments were accepted. Additionally, the Board considered materials submitted by the developers who intended to construct a 140–unit apartment complex on the subject property. These materials included a traffic study, an engineering report and a rental housing needs study. The Board then declared itself lead agency and determined that the zoning change was an unlisted action and completed the short environmental assessment form (“EAF”). Following its review of the completed EAF, the Board issued a negative declaration, finding the rezoning would not have a significant adverse environmental impact. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Supreme Court’s holding that the SEQRA determination was not arbitrary, capricious or affected by an error of law.

As to the claim that the rezoning constituted illegal spot zoning, the record confirmed that the subject property was directly adjacent to areas zoned for residential use and for commercial use. The Board determined that rezoning the subject property from a BTD to an HDRD would create a better transition between the two areas, and be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Local Law No. 3 was therefore consistent with the Village’s comprehensive plan, as it was “calculated to benefit the community as a whole” rather than merely benefitting individuals or a group of individuals. Thus, the court held that the rezoning of the subject property from a BTD to an HDRD was not impermissible spot zoning, nor was Local Law No. 3 adopted in contravention of the comprehensive plan.

Heights of Lansing, L.P. v Village of Lansing, 160 A.D. 3d 1165 (NYAD 3 Dept. 4/12/2018)