| Matter of Rotterdam Ventures, Inc. v Town Bd. of the Town ofRotterdam |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09229 [90 AD3d 1360] |
| December 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Rotterdam Ventures, Inc.,Appellant, v Town Board of the Town of Rotterdam et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Joseph B. Licardi, Town Attorney, Schenectady, for Town Board of the Town of Rotterdam,respondent. Law Offices of Donald Zee, P.C., Albany (Andrew Brick of counsel), for SYNC RealtyGroup, Inc., respondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kramer, J.), entered December 10,2010 in Schenectady County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuantto CPLR article 78, to review two determinations of respondent Town Board of the Town ofRotterdam that, among other things, rezoned certain real property owned by respondent SYNCRealty Group, Inc.
Petitioner is the owner of a former Army depot located in the Town of Rotterdam,Schenectady County, purchased as surplus military property from the United States in 1969 andoperated since then as an industrial park. In 2008, respondent SYNC Realty Group, Inc.purchased a much smaller adjacent eight-acre parcel of surplus military property from the UnitedStates. The federal government had built numerous multifamily housing units on the parcel andused them as housing for military families from 1951 until SYNC purchased it in 2008. Althoughthe housing complex and the much larger former depot/industrial park had both been zoned forindustrial use since approximately 1955, the residential use of the smaller parcel was [*2]exempt from the Town's zoning ordinance while owned by theUnited States. The adoption of the Town's comprehensive plan in 1988 continued the industrialzoning classification of both properties, and the zoning was not changed when the Town'scomprehensive plan was revised in 2001 and again in 2009.
SYNC sought to continue to use its property as a multifamily housing complex but it failedto receive permission from the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals. SYNC then applied torespondent Town Board of the Town of Rotterdam (hereinafter Board) to rezone the propertyfrom industrial to residential and amend the Town's comprehensive zoning plan accordingly. TheTown conducted an environmental quality review in accordance with the State EnvironmentalQuality Review Act (see ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]), issued a negative declarationof environmental significance, held public hearings and granted the application. Petitioner thencommenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging both the adoption of the SEQRAnegative declaration and the rezoning. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, this appeal ensuedand we now affirm.
Initially, we reject petitioner's contention that the Board violated SEQRA by failing to takethe required "hard look" at the environmental impact of the rezoning. The Town's review wasbased on SYNC's avowed intention to continue the long-standing prior use of the property formultifamily residential purposes and the reduced adverse environmental effects of suchresidential uses as compared to the potential impact of far more intense industrial uses. Thus,contrary to petitioner's claim, the Board considered the impact of SYNC's actions "likely to beundertaken as a result" of the rezoning (17 NYCRR 15.11 [b] [2]; see Matter of DefreestvilleArea Neighborhoods Assn. v Town Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush, 299 AD2d 631, 635[2002]). In our view, the negative declaration reflects a detailed review of the relevant areas ofenvironmental concern and provides substantial evidence to support Supreme Court's finding thatthe Board took the requisite hard look at the potential environmental impacts and made areasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination (see Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. vTown of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 689-690 [1996]; Matter of Ellsworth v Town of Malta, 16 AD3d 948, 949 [2005]).Since the Board reasonably concluded that there would be no significant adverse environmentalimpacts, an environmental impact study was not required (see 6 NYCRR 617.7 [a] [2];Matter of City Council of City ofWatervliet v Town Bd. of Town of Colonie, 3 NY3d 508, 520 [2004]).
Nor did the Town's action here constitute unlawful spot zoning. Generally, zoningdeterminations enjoy a strong presumption of validity and will only be overcome by a showing,beyond a reasonable doubt, that the determination was arbitrary and unreasonable or otherwiseunlawful (see Asian Ams. for Equality v Koch, 72 NY2d 121, 131 [1988]; Boyles vTown Bd. of Town of Bethlehem, 278 AD2d 688, 690 [2000]; Matter of Save Our ForestAction Coalition v City of Kingston, 246 AD2d 217, 221 [1998]). Spot zoning " 'is definedas the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different fromthat of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of said property to the detriment of otherowners' " (Matter of Citizens forResponsible Zoning v Common Council of City of Albany, 56 AD3d 1060, 1062[2008], quoting Matter of Daniels v Van Voris, 241 AD2d 796, 799 [1997]; seeBoyles v Town Bd. of Town of Bethlehem, 278 AD2d at 690). In evaluating a claim of spotzoning, courts " 'may consider several factors, including whether the rezoning is consistent with acomprehensive land use plan, whether it is compatible with surrounding uses, the likelihood ofharm to surrounding properties, the availability and suitability of other parcels, and therecommendations of professional planning staff' " (Matter of Citizens for Responsible Zoningv [*3]Common Council of City of Albany, 56 AD3d at 1062,quoting Matter of Save Our Forest Action Coalition v City of Kingston, 246 AD2d at221).
Here, although the property abuts a portion of petitioner's industrial park, it also projects intoan area of predominantly residential use. The Town, including its senior planner, concluded thatrezoning the property so as to permit its continued use for residential purposes would benefit thecommunity by retaining a transitional area between residential/commercial and industrial zones,whereas industrial use of the property would create an incongruity with the character of theexisting neighborhood. Petitioner's reliance on the Town's failure to rezone the property as part ofthe 2001 and 2009 revisions of the comprehensive plan is misplaced, as the studies thatsupported that revision did not include an evaluation of SYNC's property. According to theTown's senior planner who oversaw the revisions, the industrial zoning classification for thisproperty was simply continued without discussion or analysis. Under these circumstances,petitioner has failed to satisfy its heavy burden of showing that the Town's amendment of itscomprehensive plan and rezoning of the property was arbitrary and unreasonable or otherwiseunlawful (see Matter of Citizens for Responsible Zoning v Common Council of City ofAlbany, 56 AD3d at 1062; Matter ofBaumgarten v Town Bd. of Town of Northampton, 35 AD3d 1081, 1083-1084 [2006];Matter of McGrath v Town Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush, 254 AD2d 614, 617 [1998],lv denied 93 NY2d 803 [1999]; Matter of Save Our Forest Action Coalition v City ofKingston, 246 AD2d at 221).
Lahtinen, Kavanagh, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.