Matter of Coyle v Petrone

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Coyle v Petrone 2012 NY Slip Op 32926(U) December 3, 2012 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 05386/2012 Judge: Ralph T. Gazzillo 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] Index No: 05386/2C~12 Suprcinc Coui-t - State ofNcw York IAS PART 6 - SUFFO1,K COTJNTY PI ai11ti f q s ). - against - Herbert L.Haas Attorney feu- Plaintiff 34 Dewey Strcct F.O. Box 1850 TJuntington, N.V. 1 1743 Sol111 3. Leo Towri Attorney, 'Town of FTunlington By: Deidre M. Ruttcrfield Dcfeiid an t( s) . TQWII Hall 100 Main Streel Huntington, N,Y. 1743 1 followilig papers numbercd 1 IO 68 read on this procecding brought pursuant l o CPT2R Article 7 8 ; Notice o f Petilioli and supporting papers iiunil?ered 1-24: Answering affidavits and suppoi~~ng pq7m-s numbci-ed 25-33; Mcmorandum of Law 111 Suppoi1 o f thc Pclilioiicr with exhibits nrimhci cd 74-5 1 : Rcturn of Record numbcrecl 52-68; ir is, J~OI-J tlic that aftcr hearing couiisel for the partie5 and after consideration o f thc papers Iilcci i n rrippor-~ in opposition tlm-elo, 116s a~~plic;ltion 001) by the pe-iitioncr, pursuant 10 and (scq Aimcle 711 annuilmg the decision of the Town Board o f tlic Town of Fluntii-rglon (kcrcaftei Board), ihrcd r c h r u a i ~6 . 201 2. i s granted. and i1 is liiir~her ~~~~~~~ that tlic application is remitted io the Huntiiigtoil Town Rnard lor ~~ccons~dcration coiisis~c~it the pm\.isions of tlic eniirciy of applicable provisions of 5 198 of tlic with TOYW Cock ofrhe Town of Huntington, the prior approvals of all ot11er Town agencies or hoards and thc recomtiiendaiim ef thc Town's Historic Preservation Coinmiitec within 45 days of the date thar i h s 5l-m f;nr171 Order is scrvcd with Noiice of Entry, and it i s Further ~~~~~ Thc inslant proeceding seeks rclief pursuanl 10 CPLR Article 78 aiiiiulling 111cdetel-mimiion [* 2] o f [lie Huntington Town Board which denied petitioiier s application for a Certificate of Approval ibr thc coiislnictioii of a 3 bay automobilc service shop in a 1-Iisloric District pursuant to $198, ~Ii-ticlcT of the zoning code of the Town o r I-Iuntington. The denial oftliis approval precluded the V pciitioncr from constructing the proposed projcct cven though thc application had been under rcview f h r a period of approximately six years and had received a special permit from the Huntiiigtcm Town Zoning Board of Appcals (hereixlaftcr zsn), sitc p!an apl7roval ~ ~ u i ~ t i l ~ Town Plaliiiing l3oard gtoii (hcreiiiafter Piaiming Board) and a reconimendation for approval Crom the Wuiitington Town Nistoric Prcwvaation Coiiiiiiiltcc Thc clctailed histoiy o f the application is as liollows: Pelitioiier first made application 10 cnnctruct a Wrec bay autornobiic repair shop on its properly located on 1 14 Prime Avcnuc (SCTM ;?0400-077-1 1-2.00-083.000) on an 8600 square foot portjon of the premiscs on or about June o f 3004 Thc propcity IS . split zoned and i s coiiipi~ised a total of approximately 13.900 square fecl of xvliich I S priiimrily zoned 1-4 (Light Industiy Zone). A small portion of the prcinises is located in the R-5 (Rccidential Zone). The applicable zoning has becn in place on the preiniscs since 1.95I . The prupmy i s iinproved with a single family resideiicc with an attached rear deck and detached two-car garage T11c Iiousc and garage structures presently existing 011 the premises are covered by a letter of pre-e.tisting usc dated Juiy 20, 1983. Thc attached rear dcclc i s covercd by a Certificate of C)ccupaiic\- dated August 1 7, 2000 On or aboui .Tunc of 2004, petitioner applied 10 the Town s division o f Buildrng and Housing (liere1ria iict Ruilcling Depa~~itment) a pcrimt to maintain the cxistuiig single h m l y dwelling and for X C C S S O ~y s~ruciurcs on a 5300 squarc foot poit~on the prciniscs (which includes the residentially of zoned l a n d ) and to constiuct an automobile repair shop on an 8600 squarc foot portion ofrlic preimscs which i s zoiicd 1-4. Bccause the 11-4 district only allows automobile senvicc shops pursuant to a Special U?e Perinit (I-luntington Town Code I98-68(A)(20), the Building Department denied thc application Thereafter (sincc it is ncccssaq to obtain a dcnial fiom d i e Building Deparinaent prior to scclting I-clicf from thc ZBA in d i e Corm o f a spccial use permit), petitioner made application to thc T o w n ofT1untington ZBA for a deierinination as foliows. 1 ) for a spccial usc permit pursuant 10 T4untington Ton 11 Code 5 198-68(r-2)(20)10 allow the corrstructioii o f a n automobilc repair shop. 2) a \pcci;il Lire p c m i i t pursuanl to FTuntington Town Godc $1 98-1 70(B) for overnight storage of \ ~ h i c l c7 1,variaiiccs to scclions 198-1_0(G) ~ and 198-17 ( ) o f thc Huntiilgion T o ~ v Code i o 0B i~ I c , q d ~ i rile c\istitig stniciurcs on the parcel and 4) an arca variance from tlic recpiremcnts o f c T T~mt1ngtonToinin Code fjI98-37(F) for lot arca, lo1 width and lot frontage Follo~ving receipt o f petitioner s complete application. thc ZBA held a public hcaring at evidence and testianuny on beha1 f o f the application and at wliicli public ~ ~ n i i i ~ c n i wac received. Specirically, pelitionw testificd illat the I ~ O L J ~ S operation ofllie ary of aiiioiiiohilc repail- nhop ~vould from 8:OO a n i througli 6.00 pm iMoriday through Friday and Fom be 7%111cl-1 petitioncl- submitted [* 3] 8 00 am Ilii.oug11 3 pin on Saturdays Fwtlicr. petitioner tcstrficd that all work ~vould perforriicd be 11iSidC the Imilditig, v ~ u~ould ~ k be pcrformcd by petitioner and two additional eiiiployces, that no 1110rc~ l i a ih e vehicles would he slorcd oeitside overnight. no collision 01- body work would be i p e r h i i i c d 011 llie sitc and that waste oil would be disposed of pursuant to applicable laws and ~-egujation~ Peiitioiier also providcd a n expert witness. i.e. Waync A Muller, P.E , who was i~ecogi117cd j ihc ZBA as a traffic expert and who 1es1ificd that tlic traffic cxpccted would 1-101 h prodricc ~uicluc adverse iralfic impacts and that tlierc was adequate parking planned Cor thc sitc. /ii~criiativelq Mr MulIcr tcstified that based upon ihe existing zoniiig, the cxisting rcsidencc oii tlic 5itc could hc dcmolislicd and a 3,400 square foot nicdical 01- siiiiilar office could be constructed on Mr Mullcr testified that such a use would tlic F i l e ay an as of riglit pemiittcd iisc Tlo~lvcvcr, gcncratc grcatcl-traffic impacts than the use propoccd by petitioner. 111 addition, in support of t i i s ap1~1rcatinn.pctitiotier introduced .lotin J. Rrcsliii, Jr , a rea1 cstatc appraiscr who was also recognized by tlic 7 3 4 as an expert witness with regard to real cstate and rcal estatc imluation MY.Rrcslin T tcsllfllcd that thc parcci 1s contiguous to otlicr parcels 7oxicd 1-4 and in close proximity to parcel.; m i c d C-6- Gciicrai Rusiiiess. Mr. Rrcslin hirther tcstiricd that tlic proposed iisc would not adversely a Ffecr tlic \ alue or the neighboring propcflies, tlic character or pattern o f dcvclopnncnt w i t h i tl-ic ncigl~borlioodand that relief sough1 by petitioner in the form of area uarianccs requested could not be nchic\ cd by any other means I~oliow111g Ilcaring and upon due coi~sidcralton f tlic petitioner s application, the ZRA ilie o g1-alltcd t l ~ c pciitiollcr s application with conditions. Spccifically, the ZBA. outlining its clclibcratioii and r c a s n r ~ ~ III a 5 page dctermination, grantcd pctitioiier a special permit del-crmiiiingthat the i~g app11cani satisfied the special permit criteria as well a? the variance standards . Thc ZBA fhllicr dcier-mn~icd [tllic Board is of ilie opinion that with adlicrencc to tlie conditions imposed hercin that no Lriidcsirahic change .i?iill bc produced iii the character o r tlic iieigl~borhood TV~IIa dctriment to nor nca~ly propnerticc be created. Further, the ZBA found ihai lnccausc the applicant sought i o maintain the rcsrdciil1i11slructure. thal the ~v~1-311 comincrcial dcvelnpiiient would be lcss than that could be aiiticipatcd if i h c applicant dcinolishcd lhc home and developed the propci-ty in accordance with the applicahlc zoning Significantly, the ZRA detcr~nii~ed the development on the subject property that wil I be p r ~ p c r l y locatcd 111 regard to Iraiispoi-tatioi;, water supply, waste dicposal, firc protcctioii and P I F I C ~ facillflc?,that the proposed use will not creatc undue traffic congesthi or trarfic hazard 1101 1 I I1 11a d ~ ~ r c e afrcci the value of property7character o f ncighhorliood or patterli o f dcvclopnlcnt; 1 lq that iilc grant of 11iercquested special L I S pcriiiils will clicouragc an appropriatc usc or the l a ~ ~ c l ~ consistcnl with Ilic iiccds of the town; and that thc proposed usc will not impair public licalth or sa k t j a n d will he rcasonably necessary for the pnblic lieall11 or gc~icral wielfal-c allcl Illtcresi. hlwrcdtci., a i tlic petitioner s requcsl, arid aftcr a sccoiicl public hearing 011 the application, on [* 4] .Lrni. 3, 2005. 11ic ZRA iiiodifiicd the coiiclitiniis to the special permil issiies 011 February 3, 2005 Coincidentally. just five days Ihllowing 111~ ZRA s second grant, tlic Huntington Town Boaid c k s i gnatcd tlic petitioner s premises, along with sevcral others, as part o f tlic Mill Lane Historic D i d i - i c t puw,iaiit I O Huntington Town C odc $198-42A( 12). I n earl? May 2006, petitioner madc application to [he Department o f Planning and I Bc\~iopmcnl Site Plan approval. Nearly four years lalcr, tlie Department of Planning and Ibr I;nvironnicrit noiified the petitioner Ilia1 although Ilie site designs liad been approved, forinal Site Plan approval could not bc grantcd until thc petitioner filed 1 1 Declaration of Covenaids and 1c Rcctric[imis rcquired as a condition o f the ZBA s grant of petitioner s application for special permiis Accordingly. the Declaration ofCownan1s and Rcstrictions was filed 011 October 21, 201 1 On cmbcr 7.201 1. the Department of Plaiining and Enviroiirnent stamped petitioner s plans with ;lp717roval and issued a letter to the petitioner stating ilia1 he was authorixd to proceed to file Tor hujldiiig pcrn-rits sul9.ject io tlic posting of a bond as was also required as a condition oflhe ZBA apprnval 0 1 3 June 2,201 0, the Huiithigton TOWP Ptaiiniiig R o a d granted thc pctitioiier site plan approval for 11ic project On Februa~y 201 2, the respondent TOW^ Board hcld a public hearing regarcling the 6. pelitioncr*sapplication to consider approvai of its November 15, 2010 p h i s pursuant to Town s I T 1 ~ t c 1 -Drsti.ict regulations At the hearing, pctitioiien- scounsel made a presentation outliiiji~g i~ the hisfory of llie prior approvals granted lo the pctiliorier for the proposed project. The public was also pc.n-m~rtccl coiiiiiient on ~ h application Altliougli tliere wcrc inany coniments p b l i c , those 10 c m i i i m n t s coiiqisted cxclusively o f geiicralized objections as lo perceived (hut unsul~staiitjated) T ctitioiicr did c~iiiiiience Articlc 78 proceeding 10 challenge thc conditions placcd an ZRA .; Fcbruary 2.2005 determination granting thc petition, bur h e r witlidrcw thc potifini? ~ . h e rlie ZBA adopted ~ h modi ficatioix to those condirions. n c ~ I J W I I thc [* 5] ncgati\ c ciiT-irmimeintalimpacts o f the proposed use on noise, flood~ng, pnlciltial reduction ;I-1 value. cinjssions, fumes, traffic, pxrking, clnciiiicals aiid pollutio~~. addition, membcrs of In ilie publ.ic dircussed otlicr propcrties owned by the applicant and Ncwsday reports regarding rhe applicant s allcged arrcst record. No cxpcrt witnesses lcsti ficd in opposition to the application . Thc ptll~l~c Iicaring was closed on January 10. 201 2 On February 6, 2012, hic Town Board unaniinously adoptcd 3 resolulion denying 11ie pelitloner s application for a Ccrtificate of Approval in a Nstoric jhs11i c i stating only as follows. -I I 4 T ~ T l X G TIE TERMThTED that rhc proposcd building would have ai1 adverse unpact 011 the Iiislol-ic character o f thc Mil? T,aiie Historic District because tlic proposed usc of the building is not coi-iipatihlc with the liisloric residential character of the district. H-TERJnY DFNTF,S thc aforesaid alylication o f Seamus Coylc for a Certificate of Approval . I Yo faciual recitations or findings o f fact wcre sct forth in thc resolution and no analysis was pro^ idcd i n thc resolution outlining thc dclibcrarioiis oI 1he Tow11Board iii reaching i t s dctcrm 1 naiion Clcarlj . hascd upon tlie record 1xI oi.c t h i s Court, which includes prior determinations oI thc LR,J ~n d ihe Plai-~mng i Board a d thc Historic Preservation Conimiltcc, the cletcrt~iination the of I own Board i n deiiyiiig the pctiiioncr*sapplication for a Certificate of Approval in a Historic TP~rinct. which 1s in complete coiilra~mitionwith llie prior detailccl findings and determinatioi-r:; of t hc %HA and the Plaiining Board and recotnii7endatimis of Ihclhe Historic Preservation Conimittee, was arbilraiy, capricious and an abuse of discretion. There is not a scinitilla of ci-idencc in the record to sitpimt tlic dcnial o f the application bascd upon i t s failure to coinply with t1ic requirements ofthc iw ~ n Historic District Thc Town R o a d failed Io nialtc fiiidiiigs o f fact or to in any nfher \;tay s s1ippori iiicir dctcrmination to deny the application. Moi.covcr, the T ~ w i R o a d railed I O distinguish i [* 6] 11s rlctci iiiiiialloii from the strong precedeni created by thc LR 4, Planning Board and Historic I rcscrvaticm C ornniittcewith respccl to I hc application. Specifically. in granting thc petitioner s spccial pcriiiit, thc ZRA made findings or facr rcpa~diug compatibili-ty of the proposcd use with the rcquirements of the Town Code. the Specifically, iii rendering i t s determination, the ZRA articulated its findings as follows: (t1hc Board i s of the opinion that willi adlicrcnce lo the conditions inp posed herein no uljdc.;lrablc cllallge w l l bc produccd in the cliaractei o f the ncighhorhood nor will a detriment to nearby propcrfic5 be crca rcd Purthcr. thc ZRA dctcnmincd that. the sub-jcctproperty will be propcrly located in regard to transportalion, water supply, othcr f acilitics; that thc proposcd use will. not crcatc unduc nor w 1 it advcrsely affcct the value of properly, cliaracter o f 1 ncigliborhood or pat~ern developiiiciit; that the grant of the requested special use permits will of cncourage an appropriate use of thc land conisjstciit wit11 the iieccls of the town: and that the prcqmscd use ill not impair public heallli or safety and will be reasonably necessary for the puh IIC health or gcncral we1fare and interest Furtliermore. the Plaiining Board approved the petilioncr s site plan, and perhaps niore iiiiportaiitly. the Town s own Historic Preservation C onimissioni,rcconimcnded that the application bc approved u n s t e d q o s a i , fire protection and t r a f f i c congestion or traffic hazard No wIicrc in the Town Board s dclcrmination is tlic six year histoiy of llw application iiicntioried, no wlicrc is thc Town Board s dctermmtion explaiiied or suppoi-tcd by cvidencc contained in the rccord a i d no where i s i t s determination in any way distinguislied from tlx ZRA dcrcmiinalion which granted the application and madc spcci fie fiiidiiigs as to why the sulject qydicaiion conformed to the rcquireinciats o r tlic 7 own Code rcgarding the requircrnellts for spcual pcrmiLs. No where in the Tomi Board s decision is the Planning Board site plan approval f-01. tiic pr-oIect considcrecl or evcii nnciitioiicd. Finally, no where in the resolution does the Tovqn R O ~ dIexplain or provide any rca~oning its determination 10 ignorc the T3istoric Dnstrict I for Pimcrvataoii Coinmitiec s recommendation that 1he pctitioner s application bc approved. Acccorditlgly the Town Board s dctermination must be annulled (sec,Mmer of Lafupttc . . . Sfomge & Moving Cory.77 N.Y.2d 823, see alco, ARufte~ Chrrrles A, FkFd Deli19e1y& mice, qf 117c.06 N v 2a 516) Although 11is clear from tlic rccord that tkcrc was substantial coiiimunit-)i oppositjoii to thc im>lccl.cucli opposilion without sripporting evidciice and in tlic form of generxliTec1, uns1rhrlanlmtcd objcctions, is insurficient to support thc denial o f tlic alJlJlicatloi7 ( sec, Mrattcrr Qf RkPbwf Lee R&2hJlCn. 17 Vi//ageqf,@ri r.ng Vi~l.. I N Y.2d 8 32). 6 C;rvc~?the rac1 that tlmc 1 s im rcilsoi?ing whatsoever lllcluded in t l ~ c Town Board s denial [* 7]

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.