Welcome to theFall 2012 Training Sessionfor St. Lawrence County Municipal Planning Boards and Zoning Boards of Appeal

Agenda6:30 6:35Introductions & Overview of Agenda

6:35 6:40County Planning Cost Recovery Initiative

6:40 7:10Recent Court Decisions

7:10 7:25Overview of Case Studies

7:25 7:30Break

7:30 - 8:00Breakout Group Discussion

8:00 8:25Report on Group Decisions

8:25 8:30Wrap-up & Additional Training Resources

County Planning Cost Recovery InitiativeDirective of the County Board of LegislatorsFees now assessed for 239m and 239n project reviewsFee schedule ranges from $25 to $150 with higher fees for larger projectsFee payment needs to be received with referral to County Planning BoardCost born by applicant

County Planning Cost Recovery InitiativeCounty offered training sessions will also be fee basedSame number of training sessions will be heldFee will be $25 per person per sessionCost of training sessions will be the responsibility of each municipalityFee schedule will go into effect in 2013

Recent Court DecisionsPlanning Boards:Royal Mgt v Town of West SenecaCade v Town of New Scotland Planning Board

Zoning Boards of Appeal:Jonas v StacklerEdwards v Davison

Court Hierarchy

Legal Terms

Rational Basis:

A clear understanding of how and why a decision was reached based on available evidence.

Legal TermsArbitrary & Capricious:Arbitrary: Relying on individual discretion rather than fixed rules, procedures or law.

Capricious: A decision based on prejudice or preference rather than on fact.

Legal Terms

Equal Protection:

Standards are applied the same way to one person as to another person under similar circumstances.

Planning Board Cases

Royal Management, Inc. v Town of West Seneca et al

William J. Cade v Town of New Scotland Planning Board, et al

Royal Management vTown of West Seneca

Construct 2-Story Apartment on vacant lot

Subject to SUP

Royal Management vTown of West SenecaPermit Denied:Inadequate sewer system in areaUse did not conform to surrounding neighborhood

Article-78 filed

Royal Management vTown of West SenecaTowns record did not support decisionTown Engineer informed Town that a larger project nearby could be accommodated by sewer systemDwellings within 200 had similar orientation

Royal Management vTown of West Seneca

Supreme Court and Appellate Court found Towns decision to be arbitrary and capricious and abuse of discretion

Cade v New Scotland Planning BoardGarrison Projects filed Cluster Subdivision, which included water tower and open space to be maintained by Town.

Subdivision Approved

Neighbor filed Article-78

Cade v New Scotland Planning BoardCourt found water tower was sufficiently considered as part of SEQRRecord included visual impact assessment, statements, reports, photos and public hearingsConditions regarding tower color and preserving vegetation

Zoning Board Cases

Jonas v Stackler

Edwards v Davison

Jonas v Stackler

Construct waterfront home at less than 12 above mean sea level

Area Variance Required

Jonas v Stackler

Only set aside decision if ZBA acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion

Jonas v StacklerCourt found ZBA conducted extensive hearing on matter and found reduced elevation would:Affect floodingExpose surrounding land and groundwater to contaminationHave adverse impact on community aesthetics

Jonas v Stackler

Based on evidence, Court held:

ZBA did not act arbitrarily or illegally

Decision upheld

Edwards v DavisonVeronica Realty Corporation requested use and area variance

Expand non-conforming adult entertainment night club in downtown business district

Edwards v DavisonUse and Area Variance Approved

City Council filed Article-78

Supreme Court Denied petition and dismissed the proceeding

Edwards v Davison

Appellate Division reviewed four legal tests

Record devoid of any evidence

Edwards v Davison

Found no rational basis for ZBAs finding the property could not yield reasonable return

Determination annulled, use variance denied

Law of the Land BlogReceive periodic emails regarding land use court decisions:

lawoftheland.wordpress.com

5 Minute Break

Case Studies

Planning Boards:Site Plan ReviewSubdivision Review

Zoning Boards of Appeal:Area VarianceUse Variance

Site Plan Case StudyApplicant proposes to construct an 8,000 sq. ft. retail store with 27 parking spaces

1.45 acre, vacant, vegetated parcel with former rail spur

No zoning, but subject to site plan review

Surrounding NeighborhoodAdjacent to former gas station (remediated) and diner

Agricultural fields, single family residences and farm operations

Not in an agricultural district

Standards (Part I)

Protect Health & Safety

Preserve Town Character

Separate Incompatible Uses

Traffic Movement & Safety

Parking & Loading

Standards (Part II)

Town Services

Drainage

Water & Sewer Disposal

Off-Site Impacts

Waste Management

Standards (Part III)

Fuel Storage

Environmental Considerations

Pedestrian Circulation

Preserve Wooded Areas

Signage

Subdivision Case StudyApplicant proposes to subdivide and develop 20, 1-acre residential lots

102.4 acre parcel with two rows of lots, each lot with well, septic and shared driveway

No zoning in the community

Property CharacteristicsCurrently an agricultural field, but not in an Ag District

Wooded in northern area of parcel

Hydric Soils and Federal Wetlands are present

Surrounding Neighborhood

Year-round and seasonal residences, some waterfront

Agricultural fields

Vacant, vegetated lots

Development Standards

Other RequirementsRevegetate disturbed areas

Provide street lights as appropriate

Provide street trees as appropriate

Between 5% - 10% of land developed as open recreation space

Area Variance Case StudyApplicant is asking for a reduction in a rear yard setback from 10 to 3 feet

Request is to accommodate an addition to a vehicle service garage

New and used tire storage also proposed for lot

Zoning & Neighborhood CharacterZoned Commercial Park District (C-3) to delineate areas for future growth of services, commerce and light industry in an orderly yet flexible manner to meet the needs of private developers.

Other uses in vicinity include a health center, business offices, and a multi-unit housing complex in an adjacent zone

Five Balance of Interest TestsUndesirable or detrimental change?

Feasible alternative?

Is variance substantial?

Adverse impact?

Difficulty self-created?

Use Variance Case StudyApplicant is requesting a use variance for a gun shop on his residential property

Previously, the applicant sought and received approval for a tattoo parlor as a home occupation and would now like to reuse the space for the gun shop. Petition signed by 15 neighbors okay with gun shop.

Property & NeighborhoodProperty in Residential B zone, intent is: to maintainthe integrity of residential areas that are designed to accommodate a mixture of single and two family structures and compatible public uses

Property consists of 1.5 story single family residence with detached garage

Surrounding neighborhood consists of single family and two family homes

Four Legal TestsReasonable return on property?

Hardship unique?

Alter neighborhood character?

Hardship self-created?

Other Training Resources

http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/lut/ Training_Video.html

DEC Urban Forestry Workshop, December 11 in Syracuse

SEQR Training, City of Ogdensburg, January 7, 6-9 p.m. Call 393-7150 to reserve spot

Local Government Conference, Tuesday, October 15, 2013, SUNY Potsdam

County Planning Office, 379-2292

http://geoserving.net/stlawrence/

Fall Training, 2012Fall Training, 2012