This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
Plaintiff Essex One purchased, and divided in two, the subject property on Lake Shore Road in the Town of Essex, New York. The First Parcel included a single-family residence known as the “Cleland House”, which featured a scenic view of Lake Champlain and the surrounding countryside. The Second Parcel was improved by a restaurant known as the “Rudder Club,” which was constructed in or around 1950 and in poor condition prior to Plaintiff’s acquisition of the property. To increase the value of the Cleland House, Plaintiff submitted an Application to the Town of Essex Planning Board for Special Use Permit with Site Plan to demolish the Rudder Club. Plaintiff brought this Article 78 proceeding following the Planning Board’s approval of same with a survey condition, and a delay in approving its Staircase Application.
The record reflected that Plaintiff applied for the Demolition Application on September 8, 2016. Prior to the Demolition Application being granted, Plaintiff was required to submit an EIS, submit an Assessment Form, and obtain the survey of the Rudder Club. In this case, Plaintiff alleged that the Board began to turn off microphones during discussions regarding Plaintiff, “change meeting minutes,” and misconstrue Plaintiff’s statements during meetings. Regardless of these alleged infractions, however, the Demolition Application was granted with the survey condition on May 31, 2017, and Plaintiff submitted the Staircase Application on June 21, 2018. Prior to the Staircase Application being granted, which was initially denied within the Board’s 62-day window on July 19, 2018, Plaintiff was required to obtain an easement for “reciprocal use between the parcels,” submit “more detailed erosion plans,” and endure delay of about a year until the Staircase Application was approved on July 30, 2019. As both applications were eventually granted, the court found the Complaint failed to allege Defendants deprived Plaintiff of any protected property interest.
The court next found that Plaintiff failed to plausibly pled its equal protection claim because Plaintiff failed to allege that it was treated differently than any similarly situated property owner or corporate entity within the Town. As Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege any underlying constitutional violations, its Monell claim failed as well. Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims, including its Article 78 Petition.
Essex One, LLC v Town of Essex, 2020 WL 4924576 (NDNY 8/21/2020)
Leave a Reply