| Matter of Rivendell Winery, LLC v Donovan |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05304 [74 AD3d 1594] |
| June 17, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Rivendell Winery, LLC, et al., Appellants, v LindaDonovan et al., Individually and as Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town ofNew Paltz, et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Susan L. Wine, New Paltz, appellant pro se. DiStasi, Moriello & Murphy, P.C., Highland (Joseph M. Moriello of counsel) andJacobowitz & Gubits, L.L.P., Walden (George Lithco of counsel), for respondents.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.), entered December 3,2008 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant toCPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Townof New Paltz denying petitioners' request for site plan approval.
After petitioners acquired two parcels of real property located in the Town of New Paltz,Ulster County in a zoning district designated as agricultural, they filed an application for siteplan approval to operate a "farm winery" on the property. Petitioners commenced this CPLRarticle 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination of respondent Zoning Board of Appealsof the Town of New Paltz (hereinafter ZBA) which upheld the decision of respondent ThomasWiacek, the Town's building inspector, denying petitioners' application. Supreme Courtdismissed the petition, prompting this appeal. We affirm.[*2]
The issue distills to whether the proposed use ofpetitioners' property was agricultural in accordance with the Town's zoning laws. While the term"agriculture" is not specifically defined in the definition section of Town of New Paltz ZoningLaw § 140-4, that section expressly states that, in the absence of a specific definitiontherein, if there is a definition of the term elsewhere in section 140 of the code, that definitionshall apply. In turn, Town of New Paltz Zoning Law §§ 140-117.3 and 140-134define agriculture as "[a]ll agriculture operations and activities related to the growing or raisingof crops, livestock or livestock products, and agricultural products, as such terms are defined inor governed by the Agriculture and Markets Law of the State of New York on lands qualifiedunder Ulster County and [state] law for an agricultural exemption by the Assessor of the Townof New Paltz." As relevant here, in describing land that qualifies for an agricultural exemption,the Agriculture and Markets Law refers to land consisting of not less than seven acres that is inagricultural production and specifically excludes "land or portions thereof used for processing orretail merchandising of such crops" (Agriculture and Markets Law § 301 [4]). Inasmuch asthere is no ambiguity in section 140-4 of the code and because the term agriculture is notexpressly defined therein, Supreme Court correctly determined here that the ZBA's decision touse the definition of agriculture set forth in sections 140-117.3 and 140-134 of the code andAgriculture and Markets Law § 301 (4) was proper (see Matter of Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v New York State Adirondack ParkAgency, 64 AD3d 1009, 1013 [2009]).
We turn next to the question of whether the ZBA's determination that petitioners' proposeduse of the land did not fit within the definition of agriculture was rational (see Matter of North Country Citizens forResponsible Growth, Inc. v Town of Potsdam Planning Bd., 39 AD3d 1098, 1100[2007]; Matter of Ohrenstein v ZoningBd. of Appeals of Town of Canaan, 39 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2007]). At the time ofpetitioners' application for site plan approval of the proposed farm winery, their propertyconsisted of two acres of land with a single family dwelling thereon and an additional two acresof land upon which there were no vines, grapes, or any other crops planted, growing or beingharvested. Although approximately 1½ acres were prepared for planting grapes andpetitioners allegedly had plans to lease another 10 acres, on which they intended to developseven acres for planting vines, those plans had not yet even culminated in a signed lease.Petitioners' proposed use of the building and adjacent acreage included the production,manufacturing, bottling, storage and distribution of wines, as well as the operation of a retailwine-tasting facility and picnic areas open to the general public. Based on the evidence beforethe ZBA and its interpretation of the zoning ordinance—which we accord great deference(see Matter of Kantor v Olsen, 9AD3d 814, 815 [2004])—we are of the view that the ZBA's determination upholdingthe denial of petitioners' application for site plan approval was not irrational, arbitrary orcapricious.
Peters, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.