123 A.D.3d 1406
N.Y. App. Div.2014Background
- Loudon House LLC bought property in the Town of Colonie intending to build a 24‑unit condominium; property was originally zoned single‑family.
- In 2007 the Town Board rezoned the parcel into a planned development district via Local Law No. 12 (2007), conditioning approval on development as a single 24‑unit building; BCI Construction obtained a building permit and began construction in 2008.
- Construction stopped after financing collapsed in 2008; prolonged site inactivity prompted neighbor complaints and Town Board scrutiny in 2012.
- After public hearings in July 2012 the Town Board enacted Local Law No. 5 (2012) restoring the property to its prior zoning; petitioners filed a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking annulment.
- Supreme Court upheld Local Law No. 5; the appellate court reversed that portion, annulled Local Law No. 5 as enacted without following the Colonie Land Use Law’s required procedure, and considered petitioners’ § 1983 claims (which were dismissed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Local Law No. 5 was validly enacted under Colonie Land Use Law procedures | Town Board failed to make required factual findings under § 190‑72 before rescinding the planned development district; law should be annulled | The Town could rely on § 190‑72 or otherwise permissibly rescind the planned development district | Annulled: Board did not invoke or make required findings under § 190‑72; enactment was arbitrary and capricious and must be judged on the grounds it invoked |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a § 1983 substantive due process claim | Local Law No. 5 deprived petitioners of a vested property interest and was wholly without legal justification | Board action did not reach the level of outrageous or egregious conduct required for a constitutional violation | Dismissed: alleged conduct not so arbitrary or egregious to constitute a constitutional due process violation |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a § 1983 equal protection claim | Plaintiffs were treated differently from similarly situated parties without justification | No showing of membership in a suspect class, deprivation of fundamental right, or malicious intent by the Board | Dismissed: no allegation or inference of malicious or bad‑faith intent to injure; equal protection claim fails |
| Mootness / relief questions given subsequent completion of the project | Completion does not moot questions about future permissible uses or potential damages | Same | Appeal not moot; case remains reviewable for remaining issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Hess Realty Corp. v. Planning Commn. of Town of Rotterdam, 198 A.D.2d 588 (App. Div.) (zoning regulations strictly construed against municipality)
- Berchielli v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Westerlo, 202 A.D.2d 733 (App. Div.) (review limited to grounds invoked by agency)
- Bower Assoc. v. Town of Pleasant Val., 2 N.Y.3d 617 (Ct. App.) (standards for § 1983 due process and equal protection claims in land‑use context)
- Natale v. Town of Ridgefield, 170 F.3d 258 (2d Cir.) (definition of outrageously arbitrary conduct for due process takings)
- Harlen Assoc. v. Incorporated Vil. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494 (2d Cir.) (equal protection and § 1983 standards in municipal land‑use disputes)