Loudon House LLC v. Town of Colonie
123 A.D.3d 1406
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2014Background
- Loudon House LLC owned property in Colonie zoned single-family; sought rezoning in 2007 for a 24-unit condominium planned development district (Local Law No. 12 (2007)).
- Rezoning approval was conditioned on development as a single 24-unit multifamily building; BCI Construction obtained a permit and began construction in 2008 but work stopped after financing failed.
- Neighbor complaints led the Town Board to reconsider the planned development district in 2012; after hearings the Board enacted Local Law No. 5 (2012) restoring the prior zoning.
- Petitioners challenged Local Law No. 5 in a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, seeking annulment and damages, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process and equal protection).
- Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld Local Law No. 5; the Appellate Division reversed as to validity of Local Law No. 5, annulling it, but affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 damage claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Local Law No. 5 (procedural compliance with Colonie Land Use Law) | Town failed to follow Colonie Land Use Law §190-72; rescission required specific factual findings | Town argues facts justified rescission under §190-72 and law is valid | Local Law No.5 invalid: Town did not make required findings and relied on improper grounds; enactment was arbitrary and capricious |
| §1983 substantive due process (vested property interest / egregious conduct) | Petitioners assert vested property interest and arbitrary action depriving rights | Town contends actions not constitutionally outrageous; discretionary zoning decisions don’t reach constitutional violation | Dismissed: assumed vested interest but Town’s conduct not “so outrageously arbitrary” to amount to constitutional violation |
| §1983 equal protection (class or disparate treatment) | Petitioners claim unequal treatment compared to similarly situated entities | Town denies malicious intent or bad-faith targeted discrimination | Dismissed: no allegation or proof of malicious/bad-faith intent required to overcome rational-basis review |
| Mootness / ongoing consequences | Petitioners note project later completed but other local law issues and damages remain | Town may argue completion moots challenge | Not moot: outstanding issues about future permissible uses and §1983 damages keep case alive |
Key Cases Cited
- Hess Realty Corp. v. Planning Commn. of Town of Rotterdam, 198 A.D.2d 588 (1993) (zoning regulations must be strictly construed against the municipality)
- Albany Basketball & Sports Corp. v. City of Albany, 116 A.D.3d 1135 (2014) (same principle on strict construction of zoning laws)
- Berchielli v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Westerlo, 202 A.D.2d 733 (1994) (courts may only uphold administrative action on grounds relied upon by the agency)
- Bower Assoc. v. Town of Pleasant Val., 2 N.Y.3d 617 (2004) (standards for substantive due process challenge to land-use actions)
- Natale v. Town of Ridgefield, 170 F.3d 258 (2d Cir. 1999) (defining "outrageously arbitrary" conduct for due process claims)
- Harlen Assoc. v. Incorporated Vil. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494 (2d Cir. 2001) (equal protection and zoning; requiring bad-faith intent for disparate-treatment §1983 claims)
- Kreamer v. Town of Oxford, 91 A.D.3d 1157 (2012) (affirming limits on §1983 claims from zoning decisions)