Hansen v Macedon

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Hansen v Macedon 2013 NY Slip Op 30137(U) January 24, 2013 Supreme Court, Wayne County Docket Number: 74582/2012 Judge: Daniel G. Barrett 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] At a Term of the Supreme Court held in and for the County of Wayne at the Hall of Justice in Lyons, New York on the 22" day of August, 2012. Present: Honorable Daniel G. Barrett Acting Supreme Court Justice SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WAYNE PAUL T. HANSEN, Petitioner DECISION Index No. 74582 -vs- TOWN OF MACEDON, William Hammond, Town Supervisor of the Town of Macedon Scott Allen, Building Inspector and Zoning Officer for the Town of Macedon Town of Macedon Planning Board: Doug Allen, Chairman Suzanne Airy, Planning Board Member Merton Bartels, Planning Board Member Tom Morrison, Planning Board Member Greg Whitney, Planning Board Member Town of Macedon Zoning Board of.Appeals: Warren Jeffries, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Aaron Cook, Zoning Board of Appeals member Carl Eligh, Zoning Board of Appeals member Jon Gravino, Zoning Board of Appeals member Ronald Santovito, Zoning Board of Appeals member Town of Macedon Town Board: Paul Kenyon, Town Board member David Maul, Town Board member David McEwen, Town Board member Sandy Pagano, Town Board member and John Doe 1-50, Respondents The Petitioner has fileel this Article 78 proceeding to set aside and vacate building permits which were issued by the Macedon Town Building -1- [* 2] Inspector for a house and a "barn/garage" and a Certificate of Occupancy on property owned by the Marvin's located at 1005 Victor Road, Macedon, New York. Petitioner also seeks to have the Macedon Town Planning Board's decisions dated December 8, 2003 and June 11, 2012 which recommended approval for the subdivision of the building lot at 1013 Victor Road forming 1005 Victor Road vacated and rescinded. Petitioner seeks to have the Macedon Zoning Board of Appeals Decisions rendered March 21, 2012 and June 20,2012 denying Petitioner's appeals reversed. The Petitioner resides at 983 Victor Road, Macedon, New York. Mr. and Mrs. Marvin were his neighbors when he purchased this property over thirteen years ago. The Petitioner has provided" very extensive record for this application. This Court appreciates the hard work the Petitioner devoted to this application. The following abbreviated time line is helpful in the analysis of this case: 1. October 22, 2003 - Marvin's were issued a building permit to build an accessory building or" "barn/garage"; 2. December 8, 2003 - Planning Board approved the subdivision of 1013 Victor Road which formed 1005 Victor Road; 3. December 16, 2003 - The Marvin's sell the house at 1013 Victor Road and the "barn/garage" under construction is located at 1005 Victor Road; 4. September 28, 2004 - .An unsigned building permit is issued for the house construction at '1005 Victor Road; 5. August 14, 2007 - A reissued and unsigned building permit is issued for the construction of ;the house at 1005 Victor Road; -2- [* 3] 6. November 17, 2011 - A building permit is issued for the "barn/garage"; 7. November 18, 2011 - A Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the "barn/garage"; 8. January 18, 2012 - Petitioner filed an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to the "barn/garage"; 9. March 21, 2012 - Zoning Board of Appeals renders a Decision regarding the appeal; 10. March 22, 2012 - The Town and Building Inspector reissues a building permit for the house to be built at 1005 Victor Road; 11. March 23, 2012 - The Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals is filed relative to the "barn/garage"; 12. May 27, 2012 - Petitioner files an appeal regarding the issuance of the building permit for the house; 13. June 20, 2012 - Zonin!) Board of Appeals denies the Petitioner's appeal regarding the house building permit; 14. June 26,2012 - The Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals is filed regarding the house building permit; 15. July 18, 2012 - The Petitioner files this Article 78 proceeding. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A proceeding under Article 78 of the CPLR, to review a Decision of a Board -3- [* 4] of Zoning Appeals must be initiated within thirty (30) days after the Decision is filed. Town Law Section 267-c. From the records the first Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was filed March :>2, 2012 and a second Decision was filed June 26,2012. Since this proceeding was initiated on July 18, 2012, the Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals filed on March 22, 2012 is untimely. Petitioner argues that his application is timely because he filed a Notice of Claim pursuant to the General Municipal Law and that the Macedon Town did not adopt the thirty (30) provision of the Town Law. These arguments are unavailing. The time limit imposed by specific enabling statutes, rather than the time limits prescribed in Article 78 of the CPLR, govern proceedings to review the Decisions of Zoning Boards of Appeals. (CPLR Section 217, Fammler v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, 254 A.D. '777, 4 NYS. 2d 760). This thirty day period cannot even be extended by a Court. Sengstacken v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo, 87 A.D. 2c1651, 448 N.Y.S. 2d 521. The Planning Board approved the subdivision of the Marvin property in 2003. Simply because the Planning Board opined in June of 2012 that the original site plan is valid provides no basis to appeal the 2003 Planning Board Decision. NECESSARY PARTY For a number of years, the courts have insisted that an applicant or owner of property who has obtained a permit rnust be made a party to a proceeding challenging the'approval. See, e.g., Wittenberg Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. Town of Woodstock, 16 A.D. 3d 991,792 N.Y.S. 2d 661; Manupella v. Troy City Board of Standards and Appeals, 272 A.D. 2d 761,707 N.Y.S. 2d 707. In Red HooklGowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, 5 N.Y. 3d 452,805 N.Y.S. 2d 525, 839 N.E. 2d 878, the Court of Appeals determined that before rendering a determination on a motion to dismiss a proceeding as'a consequence of the failure to name an indispensable -4- [* 5] party, a Court musl consider all of lhe five faclors sel forth in CPLR Seclion 1001 (b). The Red Hook decision indicaled lhal a Court need nol sel forth ils analysis wilh respecllo each faclor bullhe Decision musl indicale lhal all were considered. This Court has considered lhese five faclors and finds lhallhe Marvin's are indispensable parties to lhis proceeding. See also Callagirone v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 49 A.D. 3d 729, 852 N.Y.S. 2d 850. Pelilioner in his Nolice of Molion daled Augusl17, 2012 indicales if Respondenls wish 10 join lhe Marvin's in lhis aclion, Respondenls can make a molion under CPLR Seclion 1001 to join them. II is lhe obligalion of lhe Pelilioner to name lhe Marvin's as a party in lhis aclion. The lime 10 bring lhe Marvin's in as a party expired lhirty (30) days after lhe Decision was filed on June 26,2012. JURISDICTION The Pelilioner conlends he properly served alilhe named parties in lhis action by serving lhe Macedon Town Clerk. The Pelilioner failed 10 comply wilh lhe mandalory prerequisiles of lhe CPLR as 10 lhe service required on lhe Zoning Board of lhe Appeals in order 10 properly commence lhis proceeding againsllhe Zoning Board of Appeals (see Beck v. Goodday, 24 AD. 2d 1016,265 N.Y.S. 2d 916, Sengslacken (supra), County Side Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Town of Pomfrel Zoning Board of Appeals, 57 AD. ,3d 1501, 87 N.Y.S. 2d 654.) The Petilioner submitted an Affidavil of Service wherein lhe process server made a nolalion in his Affidavillhal: "Sharleen Fleck, allhe Town of Macedon Clerk's Office, 32 Main Slreel, Macedon, New York, 14502. -5- [* 6] She stated 'I will accept service of process for the Town of Macedon and individuals named in the Petition.' Then therefore the serving of papers on Sharleen Fleck satisfies the service of process to the Town of Macedon as well as all listed Respondents." The Respondents have raised an objection to this service on the Zoning Board of Appeals. In a case pursuant to Article 18 of the CPLR to annul a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Smithtown, the Appellate Division Second Department held that the Town Clerk's oral representation to petitioner's attorney that service could be madE> him does not estop respondent's from on asserting their right to rely on proper service (Lara v. Kern, 35 A.D. 2d 958, 318 N.Y.S. 2d 273). The Court held the Petition must be dismissed for failure to serve the process in accordance with the statutory mandate. Based on the foregoing, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals and must dismiss this Petition. Attorneys for Respondents to prepare an Order consistent with this Decision. Dated: January 24, 2013 Lyons, New York ~-~ ,'=:::::::::.,- ~ Daniel G. Barrett Acting Supreme Court Justice ao: 6~ -6- SZ Niff n.

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.