Matter of Malone Real Estate LLC v Village of Saranac Lake Planning Bd.
Annotate this CaseDecided on March 9, 2017
Supreme Court, Essex County
In the Matter of the Application of Malone Real Estate, LLC, Petitioner,
against
Village of Saranac Lake Planning Board and SARANAC LAKE RESORT, LLC, Respondent.
CV16-0389
APPEARANCES:
FITZGERALD MORRIS BAKER FIRTH, P.C.
Attorneys for Petitioner
(Thomas A. Ulasewicz, Esq.)
16 Pearl Street, PO Box 2017
Glens Falls, New York 12801
MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER, LLC
(Attorneys for Municipal Respondent)
Leah Everhart, Esq.
15 West Notre Dame Street
Glens Falls, New York 12801
BRIGGS NORFOLK, LLP
(Attorneys for Saranac Lake Resort, LLC)
Matthew D. Norfolk, Esq.
2296 Saranac Avenue
Lake Placid, New York 12946
Glen T. Bruening, J.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking review of Respondent Village of Saranac Lake Planning Board's July 7, 2016 decision approving Respondent Saranac Lake Resort, LLC's February 2016 application for site plan approval to construct and operate a resort hotel on Lake Flower in the Village of Saranac Lake. Respondent Saranac Lake Resort moves to dismiss the Amended Petition. The municipal Respondent joins in Saranac Lake Resort's motion. Petitioner opposes the motion.
As background, in 2013, non-party Lake Flower Lodging, LLC submitted a request for pre-application review to the Village Board of Trustees for a planned unit development comprising four parcels of property located on Lake Flower Avenue for the purposes of constructing a resort hotel and conference center. The pre-application was thereafter amended to include in the development certain noncontiguous parcels — 193 and 203 River Street — to provide off-street parking.[FN1] The proposed hotel was to be constructed on the Lake Flower parcels along Lake Flower Avenue at its corner intersection with River Street. To access the River Street parcels from the site of the proposed hotel, one must cross River Street. After its review of the pre-application, the Village approved the pre-application and the Planning Board recommended approval of the development.
In 2014, the Village enacted Local Law 17-2014 establishing the Village of Saranac Lake Planned Unit Development District Law (2014 PUDD Law), which sets forth the procedure and standards for the review and approval of any Planned Unit Development District (PUDD) within the Village. Pursuant to the 2014 PUDD Law, a proposed PUDD site required a minimum of three contiguous acres that is owned or legally controlled by the PUDD applicant.[FN2] The 2014 PUDD Law also provided that "[a]ny proposed modification to an approved PUDD shall be considered as a new application."
In July 2014, Lake Flower Lodging submitted a formal application seeking to establish a planned unit development encompassing the four properties on Lake Flower Avenue and the two parcels on River Street for the purposes of constructing and operating a resort hotel and conference center with off-street parking. The project envisioned that a portion of an existing parking lot on 193 River Street would be improved and utilized, and that the existing structure on 203 River Street would be demolished. The acreage of the proposed PUDD with the Lake Flower Avenue parcels and both River Street parcels totaled 3.8. Respondent reviewed and recommended the PUDD's approval with certain conditions including, as is relevant to this action, the removal of the 203 River Street parcel from the project, thus reducing the total PUDD acreage to 3.5.
On March 16, 2015, the Village adopted Local Law 01-2015 (2015 Lake Flower PUDD Law) establishing the Lake Flower PUDD for the purposes of constructing and operating a resort hotel and conference center on Lake Flower. The 2015 Lake Flower PUDD Law was stated to supersede all previous PUDD laws and was the PUDD law applicable to the Lake Flower PUDD. Notably, and as is relevant to this action, because Lake Flower Lodging did not have the required ownership or control over the 193 River Street parcel, Respondent substituted in the 203 River Street parcel as part of the Lake Flower PUDD to ensure an adequate number of parking spaces. According to the 2015 Lake Flower PUDD Law, a minimum of three acres was required for the Lake Flower PUDD. With the 203 River Street property (.214 acres) and the four Lake Flower Avenue properties (2.97 acres), the Lake Flower PUDD totaled 3.184 acres of land.
Lake Flower Lodging thereafter abandoned the project and, in January 2016, Saranac [*2]Lake Resort, with the intention of taking over the project, requested and was granted an extension of time to obtain site plan approval.[FN3] In February 2016, Saranac Lake Resort submitted its site plan application, in which it listed the project as encompassing the 3.18 acres — the four parcels on Lake Flower Avenue and 203 River Street (see Petition, Exhibit G).
With its application, Saranac Lake Resort included copies of contracts for the purchase and sale of the Lake Flower Avenue parcels as well as 203 River Street.[FN4] Daniel Manning, Mueller Capital Partners, Inc., and Kimberly Walasky, who separately own the Lake Flower Avenue parcels, also each executed sworn authorizations permitting Saranac Lake Resort to appear for them and represent them in all matters before the Village pertaining to Saranac Lake Resort's application.
On June 6, 2016, during the pendency of Saranac Lake Resort's site plan application, Petitioner purchased 203 River Street, thus removing it from Saranac Lake Resort's control. On July 7, 2016, after holding a public hearing, Respondent approved Saranac Lake Resort's site plan application, but included only the four Lake Flower Avenue parcels — 2.97 acres — as part of the Lake Flower PUDD. Respondent's decision noted that '[c]onceptual plans for the project included utilizing a parcel of land at 203 River Street as a parking lot, however, the proposed project does not include the parcel." Respondent found the exclusion of 203 River Street preferable for a variety of reasons, the paramount basis being safety.
Petitioner then commenced this action seeking an order annulling Respondent's determination approving Saranac Lake Resort's site plan application, asserting that the determination was in violation of lawful procedure, arbitrary, capricious, irrational, and constituted an abuse of discretion. Specifically, Petitioner alleges, among other things, that Respondent 1) impermissibly approved a site plan that was less than the required three acres; 2) impermissibly modified an approved PUDD when it should have treated Saranac Lake Resort's application as a new application for PUDD approval; 3) impermissibly found that the project complied with the Lake Flower PUDD standards, notwithstanding the numerous deficiencies found; 4) impermissibly interpreted the 2015 Lake Flower PUDD Law as not requiring the inclusion of 203 River Street; and 5) impermissibly failed to require a variance or adjustment of the PUDD boundaries.
Saranac Lake Resort now moves for dismissal of the Petition, asserting 1) failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]); 2) failure to join the Lake Flower Avenue parcel owners as necessary parties (see CPLR 3211 [a] [10]); 3) that the failure to timely join the Lake Flower Avenue parcel owners renders this action untimely (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]); and 4) that Petitioner lacks standing to maintain this action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [3]).
Initially, the Court is not persuaded that Daniel Manning, Mueller Capital Partners, Inc., and Kimberly Walasky — the titled owners of the Lake Flower Avenue parcels — are necessary parties to this action. Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (10), a party may move for dismissal on the ground that "the court should not proceed in the absence of a person who should be a party." Pursuant to CPLR 1001 (a), a necessary party is one whose non-joinder will jeopardize the outcome of the action in either of two ways: (1) complete relief cannot be accorded the existing parties to the action; or (2) the absentee might be inequitably affected by the judgment. While those owning or holding interests in real property are typically necessary parties in action affecting the property that would restrict a parcel's use (see Matter of Feder v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 114 AD3d 782, 785 [2d Dept 2014]; Matter of Van Derwerker v Village of Kinderhook Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 295 AD2d 676, 677 [3d Dept 2002]), here, the allowable use of the Lake Flower Avenue parcels does not change and is not affected by the approval or denial of Saranac Lake Resort's site plan application. Rather, Respondent's determination simply permits a party to move forward with the use that those parcels are already subject to (see 2015 Lake Flower PUDD Law). This being the case, the Court finds that Daniel Manning, Mueller Capital Partners, Inc., and Kimberly Walasky, who each separately own the Lake Flower Avenue parcels, are not necessary parties who "ought to be joined" if complete relief is to be accorded between the parties, or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in this action (CPLR 1001 [a]). As the Lake Flower Avenue parcel owners are not necessary parties to this proceeding, this proceeding is not untimely based on Petitioner's failure to commence this action against those individuals.
In Matter of Rossi v Town Bd. of Town of Ballston (49 AD3d 1138, 1142 [3d Dept 2008]), the Appellate Division, Third Department held that petitioner property owners lacked standing to contest the Town Board's denial of Wal-Mart's PUDD application related to their parcels. The Court found that, while petitioners had conditionally contracted to sell their parcels to Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart was the applicant and the party aggrieved by the Town Board's decision to deny the application. In this matter, if the Lake Flower Avenue parcel owners had commenced a proceeding challenging Respondent's determination, under Matter of Rossi, they would be subject to a motion for dismissal based on their lack of standing. This further persuades the Court that, under the facts of this case, the Lake Flower Avenue parcel owners are not necessary parties to this action.
This leads the Court to Saranac Lake Resort's motion seeking dismissal based on Petitioner's lack of standing to maintain this action. "Standing is a threshold determination that a person should be allowed access to the courts to adjudicate the merits of a particular dispute" Matter of CPD NY Energy Corp. v Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Bd., 139 AD3d 942 [2d Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 903 [2016]). "The petitioner has the burden of establishing both an injury-in-fact and that the asserted injury is within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute alleged to have been violated . . . In land use matters, moreover, petitioner must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large" (id. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "In the context of zoning, an inference of direct harm may arise from the petitioner's proximity to the property that is the subject of the administrative action: the closer the petitioner, the stronger the inference" (Matter of Panevan Corp. v Town of Greenburgh, 144 AD3d 806, 807 [2d Dept 2016]). However, [*3]neither ownership nor proximity is dispositive.
In support of its motion, Saranac Lake Resort asserts that Petitioner — the belated owner of 203 River Street — has failed to allege facts that would demonstrate that Respondent's determination resulted in it suffering harm different from that suffered by the public at large. In opposition, Petitioner asserts that its status as owner of a parcel within the boundaries of the Lake Flower PUDD gives rise to a presumption of standing. At first blush, it would seem as though Matter of Rossi v Town Bd. of Town of Ballston (49 AD3d 1138), would require that this action be dismissed. However, unlike petitioners in Matter of Rossi, Petitioner in this matter has sufficiently alleged a concrete injury to establish its standing. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that, while Respondent's determination effectively removes 203 River Street from the Lake Flower PUDD, that parcel is still subject to the 2015 Lake Flower PUDD Law, thus limiting its permitted use from accessory parking related to the project to a storage shed under 144 square feet (see Norfolk Affirmation, Amended Petition, Exhibit C, section 5.1). By its allegations that Respondent's determination amounts to a zoning change, effectively preventing Petitioner from utilizing and/or developing its property as provided for in the 2015 Lake Flower PUDD Law, Petitioner has alleged a harm that is different from the harm alleged by the general public. Thus, Court finds that Petitioner has standing to maintain this action.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Respondents' motion to dismiss the Petition is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondents shall file and serve their answers to the Amended Petition within 30 days after service of this Decision and Order with notice of entry (see CPLR 3211 [f]; 7804 [f]), and Petitioner shall file and serve any reply within 20 days after service of the answers (see CPLR 7804 [d] and [f]).
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. The original Decision and Order is being returned to counsel for Petitioner. A copy of the Decision and Order/Judgment has been delivered to the County Clerk for placement in the file. The signing of this Decision and Order and delivery of a copy of this Decision and Order shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of that rule respecting filing, entry and notice of entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER.
__________________________________
Dated: March 9, 2017
Glen T. Bruening
Saratoga Springs, NY
Acting Supreme Court Justice
The Court considered the following papers:
By Petitioner:
Affirmation of Thomas A. Ulasewicz, dated November 18, 2016, with Exhibit A;
Memorandum of Law, dated November 18, 2016, with Exhibit A.
[*4]By Respondent Saranac Lake Resort:
Notice of Motion, filed October 18, 2016;
Affirmation of Matthew D. Norfolk, Esq., dated October 13, 2016, with Exhibits A-E;
Memorandum of Law, dated October 13, 2016;
Reply Affirmation of Matthew D. Norfolk, Esq., dated December 1, 2016.
By Municipal Respondent:
Correspondence from Leah Everhart, Esq., dated October 14, 2016. Footnotes
Footnote 1:Two tax map parcels comprise 193 River Street.
Footnote 2:However, the three-acre minimum need not be contiguous for any PUDD application submitted to the Village prior to the effective date of the 2014 PUDD Law — July 31, 2014.
Footnote 3:Section 15.0 (1) of the 2015 Lake Flower PUDD Law provides that "[t]he applicant may seek up to two (2) extensions to a deadline by submitting a written request to the Village Board at least 60 days prior to the deadline."
Footnote 4:Eric J. Isachsen and Kristina L. Isachsen, the owners of 203 River Street, signed the contract for sale and purchase on November 20, 2015. Petitioner, formed in 2015, commenced an action against the Isachsens (Essex County Supreme Court Index Number CV15-0615) seeking an order compelling them to sell 203 River Street to Petitioner. A deed transferring title to Petitioner was recorded with the Essex County Clerk on July 6, 2016.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
