Matter of Weinberg v Planning Bd. of the Vil. of Southampton

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Weinberg v Planning Bd. of the Vil. of Southampton 2011 NY Slip Op 32122(U) July 29, 2011 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 24370-2009 Judge: Jeffrey Arlen Spinner Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF r r m s w r E OF NEW YORK IAS PART XXI - COUNTY OF SUFFOLK HON. ,J ISFFR E Y A I<LE N SI'INN E I< Justice of' the Supreme Coui-t j I n the MLitter 0 1 the Application of I<OBEIW WEINBERG and MARY WEINIIERG, ~ 1 i I n c f i ~ ~ i d u a l land d/b/a LMR ASSOCIATES, y , Pet 1t i oiiei's, I INDEX NO.: 23370-2009 - agai n s t - -rile I'LANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF SOUTHAMI'TON, Suffolk County, New York. and The VI 1 L A G E 0F S0 UTH A M I T ON, Su l'fo I I\ Co LI n t y , Ne\v Yoi-l\. Re s po n dc n t s . FINAL MTN DAl'E 071001I I I.'IYlN the I'ollo\i,ing p;ipcrs numbel-ed 1 to 7 i-ead on this Petition: I . Petition [ O O I I: 2. lie SIX) n den t s ' An s 3 . I>etitioncrs' Order to S h o w Cause (002j; 4. liecord and Iictui-n; 5 . lie spun dent ' s 0p p s i ti on ; 0 . k t it i onci's ' Rep1y : \\rei.; It IS. [* 2] decision and 01-der. without thc alleged dcl'icicncies and c i ~ o rt h a t pl;iguccl ~ R cs p 111de 11t PLAN N 1NG BOAR I1 ' s clec i si on : a n d .3. (31-antingPetitioner costs m d other such relief the Court m a y deem just i i n d p i q c r . ('oui't'x Petitioners move this Court [002] l'or an Oldel-. pursuant to CPI,Ii 7S04(c) and /or Cl'lA 3 136(3). granting Petitioners default judgment f'or Respondents' failure lo s c n c and i'ile [tic certil'icd transcript of' the record of the proceedings under consicleration, incliiding all thc clocuments and transcripts of' the hearings that ~vci-c conducted. or. i n the ~iltcinative.oi.clei.ing liesponclents to serve and file the certified transcript ol' the rccoi.d of the proceedings uncler cons ide rat i on. i n c 1 ucli n g XI the documents and t ran sc r i p t s of t ti e 1ieLii.in gs t h;it \\ e I-e con clu c t eel, 1 aiicl xl~io~ii-ning return date to give Pctitioncrs ;I rcxjonable amount of' time to revie\\, the the ~-ccoi-d the filed record. 01' Petitioners do business under the name LMR Associates, and used the n;itnc LMR Associates to file dl land use applications for the subject property. Iicsporident I'LAKNIXG B O A R D i s ;I municipal board duly constituted under and existing b y virtue of' the laws of' the State of' N e w Yorl.; ~ i n dthe Code 01' the Village of Southampton, \vith jurisdiction to review m c l approve. appi~c)vcnit11 modifications, 01- disapprove site plans. Respondent Incorporatccl Village of Southampton (VILLAGE), is 21 municipal corporation duly constituted uncler and c x i s t i n ~b y 1 irtiie of' the laws of the State of New York a n d the Code of the Village of Southampton. Petitioners ;ire the owners i n fee of the subjecr pii-ccl ("subject pi-opei-ty" o r "P'arcel 4"). sitwted on the northwest coi-ncr of' Hanipton Road and Elm Street i n the Village 01' Sou~li~iinptoii. County of Siiffolli. State 01' New Yorli. and consisting ol' ; total l o t ;IIC;L 01' 23.?87 sqiwc liet. 'l'tic I subject piupcrty is the l'oiu~thlot in ;I four-lot minor subdivision, consisting ol' l'our conti~uous lots ( p m e l Nos. I . 2. 3 and 4 ) located on the north side of Hainpton Road i n the Villiigc 01' Southampton, County 01' Suffolk, State of' New York and tlcsignatccl on the Sul'l'olli County ' m I M a p ;is I'xcel Nos. O(IO4-OO7.OO-O1.00-028.001 (1';ii-ccI 1 ). 0904-007.00-0 1 . 0 0 - 0 2 ~ . 0 0 2 I ~ ~ i i ~ c c l ( 3 ) . 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ - 0 ~ ~ 7 ..00-03S.003( Parcel 3) and 0904-007.00-0 I .00-028.004 (Parcel 4. the subject 00-01 pi.opert J - ) ( t lie four- Io t suhtli vi si o n ). [* 3] Janiiai-y 3. 2002, Petitioners submitted ;i site pI:in to Responclcnt PI,,,\Nfi:'INC; I3OARD. which w a s pliiced on said Respondent's agenda for ;I public meetins on January 7. 2 0 0 2 ~ the piii-pose of ;i pi-e-submission confei-ence/inl'orm~il for discussion about the proposecl site plan. site plan pi'oposed the construction of office biiilcllngs on J'arccIs 1. 3 m e 1 4 (the subject p i q m ' t y ) . The piqmsed building for the Parcel 3 w;is ;i two-story builclin~ i t h ;I totd of' I \ 5.539 sc1ii;ii.c feet. The ingress and egress from Parcel 4 w;is at ;I single point on E3m Street. ;IS I-ecluii-cdb y the 1986 Declaration. On or iibout 011 or ;i bo ti t t h i s ti me, I'e t i t i o n er-s Ie m eel that offici al s of Iie s ponden I V I 1,1 AI(? ( i 11c Iiicli n 2 IJ mcmbers of' the Village Board of Trustees and members of Respondent I'L,ANNlKG 130AIiD) expressed interest in acquiring the subject property for use as ;I public park. At ;I nit'cting 01' Respondent PLANNING BOARD, held on January 7, 2003, one of its members. referring to the suli.ject propeity, commented that he hated to lose the property to another builcling a i d asked Petitioners' then-attorney if i t would be possible to let Respondent VII,I,AGE piirchasc tlic land f'or ;I p ; l l k Petitioners continued to pursue approvd of their site plm. B y letter elated J;iiiii;ii.y 2 5 . 2009. Petitioners submittecl ~i revised site plan and ;I I-evisecl p r k i n g plan to Respondent I'L,:\NNIN(~ I30AIID. The submission infoi-med Respondent PIANNLNG BOARD t h a t ~iccessto and p;it-lting on the subject property could not be cooi-dinated with the other three Imcels in the subdivision because of Respondent PLANNING BOARD'S 1986 Declaration. 131, letter dated March 22. 2002. Petitioners iiiformccl the Planning Boai-cl they h x l clcciclccl to limit thcii- piuposals for development to Parcels 1 and 3 of the approved subdivision ;it t h a t point i n time. Iicsprmtlent VILLAGE continued to pursue its attempts to acquire the subject property. I3y letter cl;.itccl Octoher 23, 2002, then-Mayor Joseph P. Rommosky, Jr. asked Petitioners to meet \\ it11 him "to cliscuss ideas to how we might preserve" the siib.ject property. The letter statcs. in p i r "I t]hc Irsiclents of o i i r community feel t h a t the beautiful open green spaced I;incl on the southwest coi-ner n f Elm Street a n c l I-fanipton I i o a c l i s o f utmost importance to ptrsei-\'e. W e I'ccl t h a t this pii-ticuliii-lxii~cctis ;I keystone ol' the Village's rcm;iining opcn green space." ~ [* 4] P;irccl 4 on Elm Street, and ( 3 ) to have a coniinon vehicular ;iccess point to and I'rvm l'~irccls I 7. 3 and 4 on Hampton Road. Petitioners were not able to comply with saicl Iiesponclcnt's rcc~ucsts.bccaiisc any modif'ication of' the I986 Declaration \voiild ree1iiiI-e the consent 01' thc o\\'ncrs ot' p:ircels I . 2 a n d 3. Parcels I and 2. h a d been conveyed to ne\\' O\\TICI~S on M a y I O . 2005. the~~el'o~-e maliinf it impossible for Petitioners to uniluterally alter the 1986 clcclmtion. Respondent PLANNING BOARD was o\vners of f);ii-cels I and 2 would not piiirIi;wd the pi-opertics in reliance on litigation against the Planning I3oarcl i l ' i t informed. by letter dated I:cbi.ii;iry 6. 2006, that the agi-ec to modify the I986 lleclaration. thar they hael the 1986 Declai-ation, and that they would conimcncc modified the 1986 Declxation. On oi' bout July 1 1, 3005. the Department of' Land Management, Community Pluseivation Division. of the Town of Southampton, wrote a letter to Petitioners advising them t h a t the Town \\'as interested i n purchasing tlie subject property. and asking Petitioners for "an expression of willingness to allow tlie Town to order a confidential independent appixisal" 01' the sutjcct pi'operty. At that time, the Mayor of Respondent VILI,AGE served ;is said Iiesponclcnt's repirscntative on the Town of Southampton Department ot' Land Management. (~oniiiiuniy t 1'1.c scwa t i o II Fund A c l v i sor y B o ard. That B o x d re i e \v s reco m mc 11clat i on s on propo xc el x c ~ u i s i t i o n s red propei-ty using monies f'ian the Peconic 13ay Region TI-ansfci- f a x . 01' ' J \ 1'ctitioiic'i.s inl'oi-mcd the Town. by letter dated J u l y 27, 2005, thaL i t could pi'occecl with the ;ippixisal of' the subject propel-ty. Petitioners. howevei-. continued to p e s s for\\,ml \\!it11 their s ~ t c plan approv;11 i~ecliiest. 13y letter dated A i i p s t 19, 2005. Petitioners submitted clociimcntaticm in x up port i)I' t h c i 1' ; i p p 1 i c a t i on . [* 5] cc~nstiuctan of'fice building ;is w;is permitted under the existing zoning code. m c l i n xcoidaiice \\,it11 the 1986 Declaration. Respondent PLANNING BOARD adjourned the incelinp on the application to its next r e ~ u l a r meeting in December, 3005. Pctitioners then a s l d Respondent PLANNING BOARD. by letter dated Dccembei- 22. 2005. to rccl lie s t t h ;I t Respondent V 1LL AG E' s Trustees rc mo ve the t I 1x2;i t o I' rezon i n g t ti e s 11 ec t pro pert y 1 I7.j Lvliile the site p l ~ application w;is pending and v,Jhile discussions were pending I'or municipal i acquisition of' the propel-ty. Despite this request, on J ; i ~ i ~ i ; i I y 2 0 0 0 . saicl I3oai.cl oi' Ti'iistccs 26, acioptccl Local Law N o . 2 of 2006. Local Law No. 2 of 2006 rezoned Parcel 4 from the "OD Office I3usiness District" to the newlycreated "HRO Hampton Road Office District." Banks and business and professional offices are pcnnitted uses in the HRO Office District. The zoning amendment, ;is adopted, ( 1 ) reduced the size 01' a n y huilcling that could bc constructed on P m x l 4 to 4,000 square leet for ;i two-story builcling; a n d 12) increased the setbacks for the subject pi-operty, I-educing the n ~ ~ r n b of' p~ii-king cr sp;ices t h a t could be provided on the subject property. Aclclitionally. the zoning amendment did not exempt Purcel 4 1'1-omits ei'fcct. \\<IiiIci t did cxcmpt pioperty t h a t had site plan approval; but as Respondent PLANNING B O A R D h x l not yet di:cided Petitioner's application, the subject property lacked site plan :ipprov;iI. m c l thcrcl'oir. it \\';is the position of Respondents that same w;is subject to the limitations o f the new zoning pi e) \ ,i si on s . [* 6] complied M i t h the more restrictive dimensional pro\ islons of the reccntl) ,idopted /oning 'Ime ncllll en t Pctitionci-s attoi-ney \?irate yet another letter on December 1 1. 2006 t o Rcsponclent I'I,:\NNING B0,2131) and the BAR1 iP. in yet another attempt to move the application l'oru,ad to 11 clccision. l l ~ lettei- included: ( 1 ) ;I legal memormduni explaining t h a t the inclusion 01' 11 pcimittccl use i n ;i e Loning ordinance w;ts tantamount to a legislative finding that the pcrniittecl i i x - ~t I x i i i L - w ; i h i n harm on^^ with the general zoning plain m d ~voulcln o t uclversely affect the nei~liboi~lioocl. ;inel expl;iining t h a t ;t land use application co~ildnot be denied based solely o n the pcner-ali/ccl ol2jections and concerns of neighboring residents when the use in question \vas ;I pcrniittecl use; ( 2 ) I~il'ornialIon o n landscaping and plant species; (3) ;I discussion 01' the siniilai~itieshetween 1'c:titionei.s' site plan application for a bank a n d the site p l a n f o r the B N B bank 1oc;itecl cliagonally ;IL'I~OSSI-lanipton Road fi-om the subject p p e r t y t h a t had ~ - c c e n t l y been appro\'ccd by the Planning 13cxii-d;( 3 )infoi-mation demonstrating that seven out of' eight banks i n the Iicsponclent VILL,IZGI~: h x l ;I drive-in teller's window; and ( 5 ) a floor plan for the bani< that w a s being pi-oposed 1'01.the slle. I n ;t submission dated February 7. 3007, Respondent PLANNING BOARD'S e n \ ~ i i ~ o n m c n t ~ ~ I , p I a n n i n g :in d en gi ne er i n g con s u I tan t con c 1 cided , am on g o t h er ne g ;I t i ve coin men t s . the I'e t i ti o n c I' s ' application w;is "not in keeping with the character o f ' the I-IRO Hanipton R o x l Office District, while. in fact. according to the MRO Hanipton Road Office I>istrict. ;I hanli x i c l a11 of'f'ice builcling are permitted uses its district. 'The Planning Boai-d's consultant based this conclusion on generic trip clata contained i n 1 he 1n s t i t IIIC o I' T . a n sport at i on Engineers referen cc man 11 en t i t Ied "Trip Gcn erst i o n" t h a t t he al ccrnsultant utilized in I m p r i n g its report for the said Respondent. Althoiigh this manual is ;I nationally accepted standxd f o r gauging the future tr:iff'ic ;I p i q o s e d land use may gencixte. the manual itself' states that local data will gencrate ;I more accui'atc pi.ediction. Fiirthci-more. sic1 manual bases its conclusions on data collected f i - o m two studies ~~ei-l'oi-med the 1970s and in 1 OSOs i n Cii1if'orni;i on "Wall<-in Banks". 'I'hc rii:mii;d bases its data on "Drive-inl3;Iiil\.s" on 2 1 sti.idics, nine of which they pcrf'ornied bef'oi-c 1987. Some of' the stiidics they pd'oi-mccl during the e x l > r 3 0 0 0 s ancl many o f the studies [hey pel-i'oi-mecl L\'CI-C in Vii-ginia. Ne\\' .Iei-scq' :incl ( ' i t t i I.oi-iiia. The ni~~niial busecl its data containccl i n the T r i p Generation" on old pix1,jectioii 1'actoi.s. ;incl since such projection factors were set f'ortln, the nature 01' banliiiig has changccl. The ;icl\,cnt of' clccti'onic banliing, direct deposit, and clcbit caids h a s rcducecl thc iicccl to 20 to the IxinL x i d thus may Iia\,c an impact on how m u c h tra1Tic ;I hanli m a y gcncr;itc. [* 7] I t should be noted that this consiiltiint used bq, Respondent I LANNJNG BOARD, who did no1 I-eciomiiiend itpproval o f Petitioners application Iierei n. hact in fact been the consu I t xi t for B Iv B s successful and exti-ciiiely similar application j u s t a few years bel oi-e. causing H N B to rccci\,c site plan : i p p r o v d on April 38. 2005, gixited b y this \ ~ r s;imc Rcspondent. for ; h;inl\; \ i ) i ~ l i;I cli.i\cy I I i i tcllcr and A T M on their property, less than not live hundred t cet c l o w n the road l ix)iii tlic 5 uhj cc t p r o pert y . On Septcniber 4. 2007, Respondent PLANNING BOARD rendered ;I decision on Petitioners app 1i c at i on. \v h i c h they fi 1ed in Respondent VILLAGE s Adnii n i s t rato 1. s office on Jan uai-y 8. 2008. Sit1 Respondent jssiied ; Conditional Determination, which did not make ;I final iuling I i n Petiticinei. ~application. The Court notes that Southampton Village Cock 5 1 16-3811 and VI I l q e Ida\\, 5 7-725-a [ 21 ( a ) . provide that Respondent PLANNING BOARD shall review xid appiu\ e, approve w i t h modi f i cat i on, or di sappi-ove si tc 13I ;ins. I n its Conditional Determination . Respondent PLANNING B O A R D stated that [aJlthough the boai.cI requested the applicant submit a site plan for a retail b a n k without a drive tlirougli teller ser\,ice or ATM facility, the applicant declined to do so, and therefore. no site plan \vas reviewecl. 01- picsently exists, upon which the board may base ;in unconditioniil ;ipproval. Although Petitioners. at that time, had no objection to filing a n application so amended, Respondent PLANNING HOARD was obligated to rendei- a decision on Petitioners site plan ;is submitted. either approving 01denying same, ;IS filed, if applic;int refuses to makc moc1ific:itions i t has I-ccluestcd. The C oncli tional Determination states t h a t the present site plan is unaccept~iblc hecause [tllie boml disappi-oves the iise on the site of an outdoor drive through teller service and IZ I M facility ;IS depicted on the site plan.. . despite the board s acl<nowledpent that ;I clri\:e ~hi-otigh tcllei~-sci~vIce a n ATM fxjlity arc permitted uses. and [thc] boai-cl has approvecl such uses i n and pi ev 1 o i i s si t e de ve 1opmen t q p I i c ;I t i on s . These con t l i c t i n g s t ;I t e men 1s are pcrp I c s i r i g at minimuin. a n d x h i t r a r y and capricious ;it hest. [* 8] On September 17, 2008. Petitioners attoiney and consultant met with Respondent P I A N N I N G BOARD S attorney and consultant. to i-evie~v site p l a n and t o discuss ways to acldress said the Respondent s comments on the site p l m . A I LL pihlic hearing, said Respondent held o n October 6. 3008. Petitioners consultant pi esentecl revisions t o the proposed site plan, a n d explained the similarities between Petitioners site plan and the q~pro\ ed N B bank site plan. Furthei-more, b y letter dated N o \ ~ m h e r18. 3008 ~>rcp;~i ed R h y Petitioners consultant, Petitioners submitted yet mother t-c\,iseclsite plan to said liesponclcnt. together with a response to comments prepared and submittcd b y the Respondent PIANNINC; BOARD s con si1It ant. S ai d Respondent p I aced Petit i oncrs si te pl ;in app 1 i cat i on on i t s agcn ~ 1 2 1 01thc public hcai.iiig on Decemher 1, 3008. Iiespondent PLANNING BOARD S Chairinan refused to close the hearing on t ctitionei-s site plan application on December 1 , 2008, and stated that he wanted to hear one more time I rom Rcspondent PLANNING BOARD S counsel, and from its staff, befoi-e closing the hearing. B y letter dated Januai-y 20, 2009, Petitioners submitted responses, including a letter dated Janii;~i-y . 5 3009 t i-om Petitioners consultant, to additional comments by said Respondent s consultant. At ;I public hearing held on May 4, 2009, Respondent PLANNING BOARD iidoptccl LI decision that denied Petitioners site plan application f or a bank with ;I di-ike-in teller s \ v i n c l o ~ ~;I. \,acuum-tube and intercom drive-in teller s device and an A I M machine. Instcacl. said lie s p o n de n t appi oved ;i bu i I di n g w i thou t these f aci 1 i tics. de pi-i vi n g I e t it i on er o f i.eq 11 si t c scrv icc s i commonly expected for a functional modern bank. 71 hc Planning Board s decision of May 4. 2009 concluded t h x t Petitioners ~-e\~isecl plan. last cl;~tcclNovetnlxr 17. 2008, resolved twclve out of s e \ ~ n t c e npui-ported site plan cleficicncics t h a t were identified in Schedule A of the Planning Boxd s previous decision. dated Sel~tcnibcr -I. 3007. As to the 1 iL.e other piirpoi-ted site plan deficiencies. said Rcslx)nclcnt l i ~ n c tl h a l item tliirtccn should be cleterniined at ;I later time, prior to the issuance 01 ;I 1Juildiiig pel-mit. and that itcins foiir. l ivc, six. and eight. were all rclatecl to the dri\,c-in tellcr s winclo\\, ancl t h e t\ I M. \\:hit ti sai el licspondct i t ~-efusetlo ; i p p r o \ ~ . t I ase 8 ill 15 [* 9] Kcspondent PLANNING BOARD S decision of May 3 , 2009 attempts to i.cconcile its d i s p m t c trcxtment of Petitioners site plan application. ;IS cornpared to its previous ; i p p r o v ~ i Iol the siiiiil~iiH N B site p l a i n for ; bank aci-oss the street with an ATM, ;I eii-i\ e-in teller s \ \ , i n c h \ \ , . ; \ x i i t i n I I tube and intercom drive-in teller s device, a night depository box and t w o queuing lanes \\~111i A total capacity of just ten quciiing spaces. by statins that its approval 01 the R N B site plan m a y h a ! ~hccn ;in oversight by the Board , and by factually distinguishing the site plan q~plications f or each bank. Said Respondent s decision, however, l alls short of finding that i t ui.frii(l/\ commitlcd an oversight 01 an error when it approved the BN13 site plan. Said Respondent s clccision of May 4. 2009 fails to provide a n y actual explanation I or reaching ;I different result. on substmti;illy similar facts, ;is to Petitioners site plan applic;ition, than i t clicl on the pi.Ior 1 N 3 31 S I I plm application for a virtu;ilIy identical bank located just iicims the street. ~ O n lune 24?2009, Petitioners filed this cull-ent application 1.01-;I juciginent pursuant to C I lX AI-ticlc78 q a i n s t Respondent PLANilrING BOARD and Iiespondeiit VILLAGE. Fi-om tlie start, i t should be noted that it is well settled law in the State of N e w YOi.1i t h a t ;I C oui-t m a y not substitute its own judgment for that of a reviewing board (ser: Jciniak v Plciiinirig Board q f t h e Town qf Greeriville, 159 AD2d 574 12 Dept], ~ i j i p e c i lckeniccl, 76 NYW 707 [ 19901; Miiscony Trcinsport arid Ferry Service v Richntoiid, 7 1 AD2d 896 [ 2. Dept 19791. u{f d. 39 NY2d 960 [ 19801). Therefore, if the decision rendered by the reviewing hoard is \+,ithin the scopc 01 the authority delegatcd to i t . the Court muy not interl ei e and iinniil i t , unless said clccision is illegal, arbitrary, 01- a n abuse of discretion (see F i i h s t v Foley, 35 NY2cl 14I. Miller v %oiling Board of Appeals of the Town of East Hanipton, 276 AD2d 633). the Zoning 1 3 o w I s decision will be sustained if i t has a rational basis and is supported by substantial c\,iclence (see A f i / / o r . supra 1. I n the prc\,ioiis action in front of Justice Weber, the Court directed Iiespontlent P I A N N I N G BOARD to exercise its discretion i n ;I mannei in keeping with the ~~csolutioii pi~c\~ioiis 01 applications macle by others similar situatet!. This Court has cletci-minccl t h a t said Iicspondcnt I;iilcd to c o o p e i ~ t ewit11 Justice Webci. s initial iulinz, h y nialiing its dccision 01 the sul?jecl rapt y s ;I pp I i c ;I I ion in tl i rec t con t IX veri t i on 1o i IS dec i si o JI t o ;I I I o\v t hc cons t rile I on o I. 13 N 13. i I n doing s o . this Court f incls that said I?espondent Lictcd with b i x m i c ! w i t h o u t a n y sul l icicnt e\,idcncc to I-cinl oi-cc dccision, resulting in a clccision. rhar is clcai.ly an ahiixe 01. cliscrction, its Tli i s Court. t herc I oi-e, is coinpe I led to 1.11 le i 11 favor o I Pc ti t i oncrs gixn t i n 2 t lie i I appli cati 011 p[ii suanl to C P L R Article 878. Rcspoiiclciit PLANNING BOARD authorizccl B N B to install oiic A T M outside thc huilding. xljacent to tlie drive-in teller s \\,inclo\v. Acltlitionally. that site plan c;ills for ; vacuum-tuhc a n d I [* 10] ~ntcrconide\.ice located o n an island outside of the huilding. iie;ir tlie cli-i\~e-thrc~ugIi teller s dc\,ice. B N B s site plan. however, depicts o n l y ten c;irs located in two C I L I ~ L I I I ~ ~ lines x o t l n d the I~iildiiig. When there are seven cars. the bypass lane i s blocked. In conti ast. said Responclcnt I-el usedto approve Petitioners site plan for a bank with an ATM, ;I drive-in tellcr s \I itidow m d ;I jep;1l ;lte island for the vacuum-tube and intercom device. Petitioner s applic~ition also clcpi1:ts ten cars located i n two clueuing lines around the building. ancl besting the B N B application by :illo\i ing t h a t the byp* lane is only blocked al ter the tenth car enters the c1uci1iiig lanes. n o t I tie seventh. Clearly. in regards to the external facilities 01 the b a n l i , both site plans xi-e remaikil~ly simiI;ii.. Gi\Jcn the o1.der by Justice Weber to remain consistent, i t pet-plexcs this Court ;IS to h o ~ v Iic s poii clen t PI, ANN I NG B 0ARD re.;ec led the s uhjec t i ~ p Ipc at i on aft cr a17 pro,I i 11 ¬3h 13. i 2 iolating tlic pr-ecedent that i t established. I hc examples of bias set forth herein, specifically while comparing B N B m J the siil3.jcct property, are numerous and extensive. When discussing the problem of traffic flo\r i n t o h e sul?.ject property, Respondent PLANNING BOARD never made a specific request to Petitioners to correct any potential problem. Altetnatively, said Respondent s decision 01 May 1,3009 states that the Bridgehampton National Bank, as a condition for approval of the pro.ject, agt-i:ed to consti-tict ;I traffic control device at its own cost and expense at the corner of ¬fampton R o x l and 1,ittle Plains Road is needed by traffic flow generated by the facility or otIicr\risc necessary. Said Respondent never requested that Petitioners make such ;i commitment I-egat-clingthe 131ni Sti-ect-Hatiipton Road intersection. If there were a legitimate traffic problem in the subject pro~iei-ty.f a i r treatment might have been to ask Petitioners to agree to instdl ;I triil f ic conttd clcvicc at an off-site intersection, upon proper substantiation of such ;I need by suicl Rcsponcient. I n s t e x l . Respondent PLANNING BOARD cites this a s a reason that the B N B plan should be dil l crentiated, a rather convenient, yet ineffectual attempt to explain itsell . P;ii-liiti2 sp;ices were another situation that showed Inconsistency between the treatment 01 BY13 aiid the suljcct 131-operty. Southanipton Village Code 5 I16-11( 1)(6) pi-oviclcs t h a t . [a]ccessoiy ol l -strcet parking areas shall be marliccl off into parkins sp;iccs either with ;I minim~im\\,icltti iitiic I cet and ;I minimum length of 10 feet or with ;I 01 10 feet xid ;I minitiii~mclcpth 01 18 lkct.. _ Respondent PLANNING BOARD approved the BNB banli site plan with p x k i n ~ st~ills t h a t ai-e 9 I eet wide and 19 feet long, which ;ire exactly the samc size :IS rlic p;irliiiig s t a l l s on Petitioners site plan. yet i n I - e p - d s to Petitionei-s site plain, said Rcspo~iclcnt sclccision of Scpt e m licr -4. 3007 sc t s fort h another i neon si s t enc y , de t el-mini ng that t hosc cl I iiic t i si o i l s i 11 t he x o i i i 11 c )III i 11 c on I y app I i ed to coin p x t or s LI bc o i n p x t vc h i c I e s ;in el t t at f>c it i ()ii 1.5 LYC IT ;111c i t c rcquii-ccl to pro\,icle I:irgct- p;irliing stalls that the cock rccluil-eel. to ~ c o m n i o c l a t cSIiVs. light tixicl\s and similar size vcliicles, \z~liichsaid Rcsponetcnt statccl \\ cir 01. the type sciictxll!, iii iisc i 11 I tic S o u t Ii ; i m p t on Vi I I ;I, ( e a1-ea. . r . I hc cliinips~crpi~oviclcsyet another example of arbiti-ai-y anci ciipi-icious hiax in tlic h a n c l l i n ~01 l ct I t i oiicr x app I i c at ion.. Respondent PLANNING BOAR I> s Sc hcclu I c A st atcs. the oi-ient at ion ol the cliimpstei~,located i n the n o r t l i ~ ~ e cot-riel of the piupcrty. ~-ccluit~e,s vchiclc .xr\ iciiig st the the unit t o do s o I rom the south, which is against oncoming through tr;iI l ic ;inel h:inking tixl fic . I t might Iic possible to sc~.\~icc dumpster unit cliit-ing no11 Ixisincss hours. lwt thc I3oai-cl has n o tlie h i I i t y I ( ) moni t o r or e ti I oi.ce s cic 1 ;I rest r i d ion. Rcason a h Ic 1 i I ann i11g rcq ui 1.c s that the app I ic ; i n t pi oposc ;I Iietter clesign. [* 11] I-lon,e\er. in order to access the dumpstei- on the B N B site (tlie location ot' which \\;IS ~ippro\'ecl by the Board). the pickup vehicle must position itself cross the only ;~ccessto the site; t i q p i n g any \/chicle in tlie site, and closing the access to Little Plains Road. Closing ;Iccess means th;it Lrhicles wishing to turn into the site will be stuck i n the travel Iancs 01' Little Plain& Iioxl. blocliing traffic on that public I-oad. Further, the location o' the dumpster o n the I3NB sile is Icss f t h u n ten I'cet from Little Plains Road and theref-.ore in ;I rion-permitted location, according to Section 1 I (i-'9A( 14) 01' the Village Code. I n contrast, the location of the dumpstel- for Petitioners' site has heen clcsignecl to l'unction \ \ , i t h i n the L I S ol' the subject propel-ty. The dumpster will he s e ~ ~ i c e d ~ during non-business 1ioiit.s h y using ;I small truck designed specifically to service sites such ;IS the sul7,ject property. 'I'he Ixopei~tywill be serviced by entering Elm Street, using the circulation drive o n the north siclc 01' the building, turnin: in front of the dumpster and b~lc~<lJlgo i l for pIcIiiip. The II.LICI< LZ'III int then exit v i a the byp;iss isle. Respondent PLANNING BOARD tried to differentiate the properties by pointing out t h a t they are n o t exactly diagonal to each other. They also seemed to focus on the fact that they face different ways. This Court finds those distinctions to be essentially meaningless i n this i-cgi1i.d. and an apparent grasp by said Respondent to find a n y difference between the sites, anel to clcsperately attempt to explain its conduct. Res po TId e 11t PLAN N ING B 0A R D a 1 so di sp I aye d ex amp I e s of b i ;is t h1.0 ugh o u t t ti e ap p I i cat i o n process. unrel;ited to its npproval of BNB. It seems clear that Respondent VILLAGE WIS so intent on purchasing the subject property lor a p;irli, that i t clo~idedRespondent PIANNING BOARD'S exercise of proper discretion. creLiting ;I bias against allowing I'etitioncrs to build on the pi-opei-ty. Responclent PLANNING BOARD first introdticed such a n iclea. in ;I tiicctin: on January 7, 2002. declai-ing that they hated to lose the piqer1y. I,ater in the year, thc Mityoi- sent ;I letter, floating the idea of Respondent VILLAGE purchasing the property. I'lii-cc years latcr Iicspondent PLANNING BOARD once spin mentioned purchasing the property at ;I meeting. Respondent VILLAGE'S interest in piirch;ising the subject pi'opci'ty i s irlcvaiit hcc;iusc i t 12 I o 1, clc s i t hc h;IC kdi-op agai tis t which a n e x p Ian :it i o t i for Iic s pori cle ti t ' s CY) n cl tic1 in us 1 he consiclcrcd I-cgarcling the s u l j e c t pi-opcrty, ;IS the recoi-cl herein. from beginning to cncl. seems to hc. an un IT ason 21 13 I e and con ten ti o i i s hi story of ahs i t i d i n a db I oc lis t o an i i p p 1 i c at i on t h a t i s \ i 1.1CLII I y ;I c x h o n copy o I' ;I gi-antccl application i n the I ni mccli ate p i u x I in It y . Page 11 0 1 ' 15 [* 12] question spec i fi c all y all ow s for ban li s ildcii t io n ;i II y , t he clat ;I h c IC 1 i e s upon docs n o t ;ice urat e 1 y de sc ri he the s 11 ec t property ' s sit 11 i on. The cons 1 I t ;I 11 ' s recom me n d ;i t 1 on bj at 1 I el't'ecti\:ely eliminates ;I potential competitor for BNB, his t'oniier client. ;I conclusion t h a t one is inr:sorably drawn to, as there exists n o viable or legally sul'ficient explanation for the completely inconsistent recommendation for denial of Petitioners' site plan application. ~iftcr[lie consultant imwnimcncled approval of the BNB site p l a n mere short years before. g (31-di m c c 11 mi1 i 11 I ti , 17 11LI I I !'. w hen Respondent PLAN N ING B 0A RDs di rccted Pct 1 t i on el-s to s 11 b til i t ;I proposccl rcvisecl site plm that did not contain ;I di-ise-in tcller's winclow or aiitomatecl teller machine. it clispla!,etl another example of bias, ;is it is unrealistic for Petitioners to suhmit such ;I modification. A ba nk without a n y of' the outdoor facilities would rcndcr such an a p p r o ~ ; ~ I Lvorthless. Petitioners did not ;ipply for. nor can they use, ;I bank without ;i drive-in teller's window or automated teller machine, now commonly expected services at virtually :ill banking institutions. So, in essence, what said Respondent w a s saying to Petitioner's was, modify your application so that i t has nothing to do with what you were ;ipplying for. The euamples of bias, arbitrariness, capriciousness, abuse of' discretion and conduct outside the scope of the xithority delegated to a public body in this case Lire endless. Rcspondcnt PLANNING BOARD claims that thei-e "may have hccn an oversight" when i t allowed BNB t o build its structure with drive-in teller facilities. Said Iiespondent :rnd Rtspondent VILLAGE, however. offers nothing of substance, nor the metwst of' fact. to st~pport such ;I tletei-min;ition, foregoing a n y opportunity to validate such it claim. nor ol'f'cring any Iegisl:iti\.e action to avoid future e1-m. by the malting an such an alleged ovci,sight, i n s t c d c i u t e s ;I substantial record supporting the conclusion that what \viis exercised i n this rnxtlci' wiis ;in inci-etlihlc amount of bias, over a Ion,o period of time. 0 ' t'iii-ther note is the Building Permit issued b y Respondent VL1,AGE.s Building Inspector on 1 April 9 I . 2005 for BNB bank, followed hy ;I Cei.til'ic;ite of Occtipmcy, said Certi I'icate pro\,iclinp that the hui Icling: [* 13] It c s pon de n t P I A N N IN G I3 0A IiD arzues t h a t t he v ac LIurn- t u be reel u 1 res adtli ti on ;I I t c n qiieiiing spaces. even though such a conclusion is unsupported in the Village Code. Furthei-more. this argument fails to take into consideration the actual impact of \,acuum-tiibe I service at ; bank. Instead of brining in extra traffic ;IS an additional drive-in teller. the pliyosc of' thc vxuum-tube supposed t o be is to assist the drive-in teller in their duties, maliin: the entire process more efficient. Iiather than slowing the process down. the v;iciiiini tihe is used to xxually increase efficiency a n d the speed of the line, creating ;I reduced need for queuing spaccs. Only one :ictiial teller will operate both the drive-in teller window and the vacuum-tuhc. Interpreting the code t o require an additional ten spaces for the vacuum tubc i s inconsistent n,itIi the meaning m c l purpose of' the code, unless Respoiident VILLAGE a n d cnsagecl i n ;I proper and credible study analyLing the actual impacts of v;iciiiim-hose lanes that demonstrated this the piuiimprion employed by banlis ~ICI'OSS country was incorrect. N o evidence to suppoi't their prcsiiniption was contained in the record. 11s Siniilxly. Respondent PLANNING BOARD also considered the ATM to be a b'cli-ivc-inteller's M indow", relying on the same presumption. The Court is drawn to the arbitrary nature of this conclusion for exactly same reasoning set forth in the prior paragraph. Allhough drivers can pel-form many of the same activities at an ATM 21s they can at ;I Teller window, thcy itre very dii'fercnt. ATMs BIT locuted all over the county, and not just at banks. It seems illogicd to presume t h a t drivers would waste time even pulling up to an ATM w i t h several c m i n a queue. in light 01' the abundance of ATMs In any given area, let alone ;I downtown village businc dijtrict. Alternatively, i t is clear that banks rely on ATM in order to only shorten cliieiiing litie. ;IS some drivers who are waiting lor the drive-in teller may decide that the A'TM could satisfy their needs jiist as fine. Of coui'se, had Respondents engaged in ;I proper a n d ci-edible stiicly iindpzing tlie actual impacts of ATM niachine availability at banks t h a t clcmonsti.atcc1 this presuniption employed by bunks ;icross tlie country was incorrect, there might have hccn ;I legitimacy to their presumptions, but alas, once again there is no evidence to stippoi't this con t ai n cd i n t h e I-ec t.d. o I l e s 17 i t c Kc s poi1el en t PLAN N 1N G B0 A I i D ' s I'oci i s on the OLI t cloo I' l'x1 I i t i c s o I' t he s i i b j cc I p i q e r t y . i t also alleges some othei- problems with the application. such ;IS potential hacl\-iiIx onto the roxl 1.1-om this bank (yet said Rcsponclcnt f'ailecl t o of'fei. a n y rcliiil?lc evrtlencc 01' samc) xicl gcnci-iil obsei.v;itions. such ;IS ; school nearby (althoiigh thcy I'ailccl to clcmonsti-atc thc I clangci.s 01' :I b a n k located near ;I school). None of' this general t i i l k \\/ill sul'l'ice. When they elid [* 14] use trip ciata. i t w;is from national sources. not local sources. Petitioners argued s~iccessI'uIly that B N B . which has almost exactly the same layout a s the sihject propel-ty. cloes not have any mii,jor tra f t i c p r o b 1em, Petitioners have demonstrated numerous examples of inconsistencies i n how Respondent PLANNING BOARD treated their site plan application, ;is opposed to how it treated the B N B I x i n l i site plan application, and Respondents havine failed to explained a\i'ay a n y of' thc its i.ationale f o r such disparate treatment. When two sitc plans are so utterly iclcntic;tl, and the B o m l ~ipprovcsone q?pIic;ition, yet denies the other, the Court must take ;I closc look at the i.e;isonin~ behind same, and determine if there is ;i rational justification. The Court is further mystified by the apparent lack of coopei-ation and compliance with rwluisite procedures regarding the Record and Return, the nexus of all discovery i n a n Article 78 proceeding, by Respondents. A review of same, and it's amended iteration. reveals at inorc1in;ite period 01' time before substantial missing items were supplied, and the complete I'ailui~eto e \ ~ r provide other documents that are not only necessary for Petitioners to s u h s t m t i m their claims. 01- Respondents to substantiate their actions. but for the Court to be assisted i n !'oi-m~~l;itin~ md issuing its review, such as the transcripts of hearings. Failure to comply with such recjuirements, and the placing of such burdensome obstacles to Petitioners, and even morc importantly to the operations of the Court, are nothing less than inexcusable. In conclusion, n o t only can this Court not find a n y riitional basis for the conduct and detei-mination of Respondent PLANNING BOARD, but it is inescapable that one niust he drawn to the inexor:ihle concliision that said Respondent's decision is arbitrary, capricious, a n abuse of discretion and beyond the scope of the authority delegated to thcsc puhlic hoclics. 'rlici-efoir. this Court is coinpelled b y law to grant the relief reyiiestccl in the iinciei~lyingPetition, ;IS set t'oi-tln 1 cici in be I ow. 1 For all the reasons states herein above and in the totality of the pipers submitted herein, it is, OIII)EKEJ), that the ahove referenced Petition LOO I ] , is hci-eby granted to the culcnt sct I'orth hci-ein : 1 . Tlic clccision 01' Respondent PLANNING B O A R D is hereby mnullcd. ~ ~ c \ ~ c ~ ~ s c c l aside: aiicl sct 2 . This matter is hei-ehy I - c m ~ n d c d Responclent P I A N N I N G I 3 0 A I I I I I'or piupcr sitc plan to re \ i \vi t h t he di I T C t i on to approve t 11e app I i c at i on cons i st en I LV i t h t Iic ('() 111.1 ' s clcci si < )11. I with and it clue haste: is tiii-thei. ;ill O I < J ~ I < I < l ~that thc ahovc i~efercncedapplicalion of' PctitIoner [003], hci-chy cicniecl ;is moot, I~, is in that ;I default jucigmcnt is tinncccss;iry in light of the decision on the merits set I'oi~tlilici-cin: and i t is f'iirthcr Page 11 Of 1s [* 15] 0RI)EKEI). t h a t Counsel for Petitioner is hei-eby directed to serve ;I copy o n this Oidcl-. with Notice of Entry, upon Counsel for all other parties, within 20 days of entry o f this Oi-der b y the Si1t'folk ('ounty Clerk. Dated: Kiverheacl, N e w York ,July 29, 201 1 Esseks Heftel, & Angel LLP 108 East Main Sweet, PO Box 279 IiI\~erhead. NY I 1901 Robinson Jii Rohinson PC 01 MNn St1uet So~ithampton. Y 1 1968 N I'agc 15 o f 15

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.