Matter of Committee to Protect Overlook Inc. v Town of Woodstock Zoning Bd. of Appeals

[*1] Matter of Committee to Protect Overlook Inc. v Town of Woodstock Zoning Bd. of Appeals 2005 NY Slip Op 52352(U) [18 Misc 3d 1144(A)] Decided on April 6, 2005 Supreme Court, Ulster County McCarthy, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 6, 2005
Supreme Court, Ulster County

In the Matter of the Application for a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules of, The Committee to Protect Overlook, Inc., Autonomous Metropolitan Orthodox Church of Western Europe and the Americas, Archdiocese of New York and New Jersey, d/b/a The Church of the Holy Transfiguration of Christ on the Mount, Adele Bernardi, Steve Cohen, Marion Dorr-Dorynek, and Jay Wenk, Petitioners,

against

Town of Woodstock Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Woodstock Planning Board, and Karma Triyana Dharmachakra Monastery, Inc., Respondents.



04-3103



Donald R. Billet, Esq.

Attorney for Petitioners

301 W. 20th Street, Apt. 3C

New York, New York 10011

Grant & Lyons, LLP

Attorneys for Town of Woodstock

Zoning Board of Appeals and Town

of Woodstock Planning Board

(Drayton Grant, Esq., of counsel)

149 Wurtemburg Road

Rhinebeck,, New York 12572

Sherman & Sterling

Attorneys for Karma Triyana

Dharmachakra Monastery, Inc. (John P. Tallon, Esq., of counsel)

599 Lexington Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Jacobowitz and Gubits

Attorneys for Krama Triyana

Dharmachakra Monastery, Inc.

(Larry Wolinsky, Esq., of counsel)

540 Broadway

Monticello, New York 12701

William E. McCarthy, J.

Karma Triyana Dharmachakra Monastery, Inc. (hereinafter "Monastery") is an applicant before the Town of Woodstock Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter "ZBA") and Town of Woodstock Planning Board (hereinafter "Planning Board"). Petitioners, a community oversight group and several neighbors of the Monastery, challenge two determinations of the ZBA, both dated August 24, 2004 and filed in the Town Clerk's office on September 1, 2004, claiming that each determination is void in that each is illegal, arbitrary and capricious and lacking substantial evidence. These two determinations approved three variance requests by the Monastery: 1) a height variance (Section IV.A.10) permitting construction of a multi story building that will exceed the 35-foot-maximum height allowed in an R5/Scenic Overlay District by 6 feet 10 1/4 inches; 2) a 5-foot infringement into the required 75-foot-side-yard (Section IV.A.2[f]); and 3) permitting construction of an iron fence 6-feet high and 82-feet long around a portion of the perimeter of the replacement monastery, containing two-arched gates 7-feet high (Section V.D.1). By Resolution/Approval with Conditions dated July 29, 2004, the Planning Board conditionally approved the site plan for the proposed expansion of the Monastery and the Special Use Permit (required due to its location in the Scenic Overlay District) on the condition that these three variances be approved by the ZBA

Petitioners also seek to reargue the issue of the ZBA determination dated March 11, 2004, which held that a story variance was not required. That issue is the subject of a previous Article 78 proceeding involving the same parties (Index number 04-1090). A second attempt to litigate that issue is improper and is beyond the 30-day statute of limitations for that determination. Consequently, the Court will not entertain any further application with regard to the story variance in the context of this proceeding.

In a third Article 78 proceeding (Index No.04-2818), petitioners challenge the site plan approval and issuance of a special-use permit by the Planning Board; the Court will not entertain a duplication of arguments raised in that proceeding. As there are no allegations properly raised herein against the Planning Board, the petition against the Planning Board is dismissed.

The Monastery is a Tibetan Buddhist monastery established in1978 located on 23 acres on Meads Mountain Road on Guardian Mountain in the R5/Scenic Overlay District of Woodstock, New York. The Monastery is the North American monastic seat of the17th Karmapa, the spiritual head of Kagyu Lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. The 17th Karmapa has chosen this site as sacred and determined that it will serve as the North American seat for the Kagyu Lineage and successive Karmapas. [*2]

The Monastery is adjacent to State Forrest Preserve lands with a trail head and associated parking area. Also adjacent to the Monastery are The Church of the Holy Transfiguration of Christ on the Mount, which is situated on land owned by the Town of Woodstock that has recently been designated as a State Historical Record Structure, and single family residences with five or more acres.

The existing Monastery consists of a Shrine, housing for the monks in residence, and facilities for religious retreats for the public. The existing 19th century three-story wooden building that presently houses the monks in residence and retreat participants is in a dilapidated condition. The Monastery claims that it cannot reasonably be refurbished. The Monastery proposes to demolish this building and build a significantly larger and safer U-shaped structure for housing and retreats that will incorporate the existing Shrine so as to make an interior courtyard for outdoor religious ceremonies. The proposed Monastery, courtyard and Shrine will cover approximately 3 acres of the 23-acre parcel.

All parties confirm that the replacement monastery will be the largest building in the Town of Woodstock. The existing Shrine will lie at the uppermost side of the replacement monastery. The new U-shaped building will be partially built into the hillside with two floors at or partially below ground level and two lower floors built into the hillside below ground level. All floors built against the hillside will have air and light access and two entrance/exits at grade level. The area within the U-shape will be back-filled to create the courtyard. There will be a retaining wall on two sides of the proposed U-shaped expansion, which is 14-feet at it highest point. An 82-foot-long, six-foot-high fence with two gates will run along the perimeter of the building to provide privacy and security for the Monastery and Shrine.

Overall, the maximum height of the structure when viewed from the existing ground level at Mead Mountain Road will be no higher than the existing Shrine and lower than the three- story-existing building which will be removed. From the road and courtyard level, two stories will be visible. From the south and west mountain sides, three and one-half to four stories will be visible. The proposed expansion will include gathering areas, meeting rooms, a library, office space, a staff lounge, a communications room, a large kitchen and dining area seating 65 people, 42 bedrooms, 48 bathrooms, a laundry, storage areas, an infirmary and a bookshop. The Monastery maintains that, although the proposed facility is larger than the existing structure, no change of use or occupancy of the facility is planned. The new building is intended to provide improvements in space, quality, energy efficiency, and safety for the residents and visitors to the Shrine and Monastery.

In the R/5 district site plan approval is required for an expansion of a non-residential site (Zoning Law §VII). A special use permit is required for construction in the Scenic Overlay District (Zoning Law §II.A.12; §V.H.). In furtherance of its application to the Planning Board, the Monastery applied to the ZBA for the aforementioned variances. At two public hearings held on October 26, 2000 (original application) and December 14, 2000 (amended application) for the side-yard and height variances, the architectural and engineering drawings, showing the height calculations, were reviewed by the ZBA, the analysis required by Town Law § 267-b(3)(b) was considered and oral, and written comment from the public was received. The project was also discussed at a ZBA meeting held on November 9, 2000. The application was then adjourned for several years while the Monastery, the Planning Board, and other agencies engaged in the required SEQRA/TWEQRA process. [*3]

A joint Planning Board/ZBA public hearing was held on the replacement monastery project on May 8, 2003. During the SEQRA/TWEQRA process, the question arose whether a story variance was needed. By Memorandum dated February 2, 2004, the Planning Board asked the ZBA for an interpretation of the Zoning Law and whether a story variance was required. At a public hearing held on February 12, 2004 on this issue, the project engineer again explained, with references to plans previously submitted to the ZBA, how the building height was calculated.

At the public vote on August 26, 2004 on the three variance applications, the ZBA members each affirmed that they had sufficient information (which included the Planning Board's Findings Statement dated July 24, 2004, the DEIS and FEIS, letters from the public, comments from the public at the hearings and the Monastery's submissions) to consider the applications and that they were ready to vote.

The ZBA determination cited the need for the height and side-yard variances due to the desire to replace the current antiquated wooden structure with an enlarged, safer and more efficient Tibetan-style monastery, the location of the existing Shrine (which will not be changed) and the topography and irregular boundaries of the proposed building site.

The height variance (6 feet 10 1/4 inches above maximum 35-foot height) and side-yard variance (5-foot reduction in minimum 75-foot-side yard) were addressed simultaneously in the Town Law § 267-b evaluation. The ZBA determined that there will be no change in the character of the neighborhood nor detriment to nearby properties by allowing the variances because the roof of the proposed building would be 17-feet lower than the existing Shrine and 15-feet lower than the existing building which will be replaced (Town Law § 267-b[3][b][1]). The ZBA determined that there were no other feasible methods of obtaining the benefit without a variance because of the location of the existing Shrine and the necessity for backfilling and leveling the building site. The Zoning Board of Appeals also determined that alternative sites would also require variances and would have more impact on the environment and nearby land uses (Town Law § 267-b[3][b][2]). Although the ZBA determined that the requested height variance (from a maximum of 35 feet to 41 feet 10 1/4 inches) was substantial, it stated that the Planning Board had imposed a condition requiring plantings to mitigate the visual impact (Town Law § 267-b[3][b][3]). The ZBA found that the variances would have no direct, significant adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; that the proposed use is an ordinary and reasonable use of the property; and that, once construction was complete, there would be no increase in noise, dust, smells or sight obstructions, nor any adverse effects on available municipal, county and state facilities and services (Town Law § 267-b[3][b][4]). The ZBA found that the hardship was self-created in that the applicant is deemed to have constructive knowledge of the Zoning Law; however, this factor is relevant but does not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance (Town Law § 267-b[3][b][5]).

The ZBA also reviewed both the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Town of Woodstock Environmental Quality Review Act and determined that 6 NYCRR 617.5 (12) makes the granting of a setback or lot line variance a Type II action which is not subject to SEQRA review; SEQRA Type II actions are also Type II actions under TWEQRA (TWEQRA §3.030[a]); height and fence variances are unlisted actions under SEQRA. In any event, the Planning Board, as lead agency, undertook SEQRA and TWEQRA review of the replacement monastery project and required an environmental impact statement. [*4]

Petitioners claim that the record is devoid of a clearly disclosed method of calculating the maximum height of the building. Petitioners argue that the ZBA determination improperly relied on the inaccurate claims by the Monastery that the height and side-yard variances are required by the religious practices anticipated at the replacement monastery; petitioners assert that much of the space in the proposed building is devoted to non-religious uses. Additionally, petitioners claim that the ZBA ignored the fact that the proposed expansion, which will be more than four times the size of the present facility, will cause undesirable changes in the character of the neighborhood to the detriment of neighboring property owners and have an adverse impact on the visual, physical and environmental conditions in the R5/Scenic Overlay District.

Zoning board decisions are presumptively correct (Levine v Korman, 185 AD2d 383). Judicial review of a zoning board's decision is limited to determining whether the decision is illegal, arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion or whether a decision made as a result of a hearing held is supported by substantial evidence; and unless the board's decision is arbitrary or illegal, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board (see Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 599; Epstein v Board of Appeals, 222 AD2d 396). The zoning board determination must be rational and supported by substantial evidence (Cowan, 41 NY2d at 599).

"It is well settled that, while religious institutions are not exempt from local zoning laws, greater flexibility is required in evaluating an application for a religious use than an application for another use and every effort to accommodate the religious use must be made [citations omitted]" (Matter of Genesis Assembly of God v Davies, 208 AD2d 627, 628). "The controlling consideration in reviewing the request of a school or church for permission to expand into a residential area must always be the over-all impact on the public's welfare" (Cornell University v. Bagnardi, 68 NY2d 583, 595). Thus, "educational and religious uses ordinarily have inherent beneficial effects that must be weighed against their potential for harming the community" (Id. at 597). Moreover, "the imposition of requirements unrelated to the public's health, safety or welfare are beyond the scope of the municipality's police power and impermissible" (id.).

The Zoning Law defines "building height" as: "The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished grade along the side of the building having the lowest finished grade to the * * * average height between eaves and ridge * * * " (Section XV.A). "Finished grade" is defined as: "Natural surface of the ground, or surface of the ground after completion of any change in contour" (Section XV.A).

The Court has carefully reviewed the record of the proceedings before the ZBA. The proceedings conformed in all respects to the requirements set forth in Zoning Law, Section X.C and Town Law § 267-a.

The record is clear that the Monastery explained to the ZBA that the building height was calculated using the average grade along the top of the terrace on the lowest side of the building, in this instance from the south side, to the average height between the eaves and the ridge. Using this method the Monastery calculates the building height as 41 feet 10 1/4 inches. The ZBA determination has accepted these calculations as meeting the Zoning Law requirements. Petitioners would have the ZBA calculate the height from the bottom of the retaining wall below the lowest access terrace; however, they have failed to show that this point is a "finished grade" as defined in the Zoning Law. Further, contrary to petitioners assertions, the record discloses that the ZBA extensively reviewed the method of calculation of the height of the proposed building, [*5]including various site plans and drawings referred to in the hearing minutes of each hearing and the DEIS and FEIS booklets that had been provided to the ZBA as reflected in the minutes of the February 12, 2004 hearing. Where the interpretation of a statute or its application involves an evaluation of factual data and inferences to be drawn therefrom, the courts defer to the agency charged with the responsibility for administration of the statute (Kurcsics v Merchant Mutual Insurance Co., 49 NY2d 451).

Petitioners argue that the height of the proposed building is inextricably combined with the size of the overall building. Moreover, they contend that the large expansion is due to an anticipated change in the use of the facility to accommodate large numbers of people when the 17th Karmapa is in residence at the Shrine. These issues have been extensively addressed in the context of the SEQRA/TWEQRA review process and the Planning Board's approval of the site plan and decision to grant the special use permit and this Court's contemporaneous decision related thereto (Index Number 04-2818). In any event, the ZBA has addressed the size of the building and the nature and character of the fence, as well as the opposition by certain members of the community, and determined that the variances are appropriate. As a condition for approval of the project, the ZBA noted that the Planning Board required landscaping to screen and mask the view of the proposed building in order to mitigate the visual impact of the four levels on the south facade.

Petitioners have offered no evidence that property values in the neighborhood will decrease. Nor is there evidence that the character of the neighborhood will change as it already has the existing Shrine and Monastery, which currently holds retreats and periodically conducts celebrations attracting large groups. There will be eighteen additional bedrooms in the proposed building. However, the record indicates that many people currently using the Monastery stay in local bed and breakfasts or motels. Thus, the increase in bedrooms will allow these people to stay on site and reduce the back and forth traffic from town. Petitioners are concerned that visits to the Monastery by the 17th Karmapa and celebrations convened on such visits will generate large traffic congestion in this rural area. Generally, problems of traffic and congestion can be adequately addressed with the imposition of conditions (see Cornell Univ., 68 NY2d at 596; Apostolic Holiness Church v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 220 AD2d 740, 744). Traffic control is addressed in the Planning Board decision on the site plan approval and Special Use Permit.

Likewise, the ZBA's determination granting the fence variance was well-considered and rationally based. Zoning Law §V.D.1 states in pertinent part: " * * * in any residential or commercial district, fences and walls shall not exceed six (6) feet in height when erected in a rear or side yard nor four (4) feet in height when erected within a front yard." The proposed fence exceeds the four foot standard for front yard fences by two feet and three feet at the front gate. The Monastery stated that the 6 foot high fence, running 82-feet along the proposed building, with two gates for pedestrians and vehicles, would offer privacy and security for the interior space of the Monastery, allowing for the Shrine to remain open longer in the evening. The ZBA's determination was based on careful consideration of the religious use of the building, the size of the proposed project and analysis of the factors set forth in Town Law 267-b(3)(b). Petitioner's argument that the fence is solely designed to enhance the imposing appearance of the Tibetan-style monastery is baseless speculation.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ZBA determinations were lawful, not arbitrary, capricious nor an abuse of discretion. Moreover, the determinations were amply supported by [*6]substantial evidence in the record.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED & ADJUDGED that the petition as it relates to the Town of Woodstock Zoning Board of Appeals determination dated March 11, 2004 pertaining to the necessity for a story variance is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED & ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed against the Town of Woodstock Planning Board, and it is further

ORDERED & ADJUDGED that the petition is in all other respects denied.

This shall constitute the decision, order and judgment of the Court. All papers are being returned to respondent Monastery's counsel for filing. The signing of this decision shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Counsel are not relieved from the provisions of that rule regarding filing, entry and notice of entry.

So Ordered & Adjudged

ENTER

___________________________________

William E. McCarthy, JSC

Dated: April 6, 2005

Kingston, New York