The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20221034 Marion Ave Zoning Interpretation Supreme Court decsision 01/10/2024 FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 01 10 2024 04 . 56 P INDEX NO. EF20231500 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SARATOGA STEWART'S SHOPS CORP., NOTICE OF ENTRY Petitioner, Index No. EF20231500 -against- CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS and JOHN IACOPONI, Respondents. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the Decision and Order signed by the Honorable James E. Walsh, J.S.C. on January 10, 2024, and entered in the office of the Saratoga County Clerk on January 10, 2024. Dated: January 10, 2024 Albany,New York WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP /s/JohnJ. Henry By: John J. Henry, Esq. Jennifer M. Thomas Yetto, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner One Commerce Plaza Albany, New York 12260 (518) 487-7600 jhenry@woh.com jyetto@woh.com To: All Counsel of Record(via NYSCEF) 1 of 7 FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 01 10 2024 04 : 89 P14 INDEX NO. EF20231500 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2024 SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SARATOGA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Matter of STEWART'S SHOPS CORP., Petitioner, DECISION and ORDER RJI # 45-1-2023-0692 -against- Index# EF20231500 CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS and JOHN IACOPONI, Respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPEARANCES John J. Henry, Esq. Jennifer M. Thomas, Esq. Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP Attorneys for Petitioner One Commerce Plaza Albany, New York 12260 Anthony J. Izzo, Esq. City Attorney Attorneys for Respondent City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Mr. John Iacoponi Respondent 4 Avenue A Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 WALSH, J On or about June 7, 2023, Petitioner filed a Notice of Petition and Petition seeking an order pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) to annul the decision of Respondent City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Page 1 of 6 I of 9 FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 01 10 2024 04 : H$ P14 INDEX NO. EF20231500 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2024 Appeals, which rejected Petitioner's application to apply §204-17.7(d) of the Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance. By Verified Answer, Respondent City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals has joined issue and filed a Memorandum of Law in opposition to the Petition. Petitioner filed a Reply Memorandum of Law on August 25, 2023. Petitioner owns three contiguous parcels of land located on Marion Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs. Two of the parcels are located in the Tourist Related Business (TRB) zoning district, while the third is located in the Urban Residential-- 2 zoning district. Petitioner has continuously owned all three parcels since 2004 and the parcels have been merged into a single parcel for tax purposes. Pursuant to Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance §204-17.7(d), Petitioner sought approval to extend the Tourist Related Business zoning district 100 feet into parcel one. After initially determining that the application was inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning and Building Inspector reversed his opinion, finding that his prior determination was not defensible. Following a complaint from Respondent Iacoponi, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application. The applicable section of law from §240-1.7 of the City's Zoning Ordinance reads as follows: 1.7 INTERPRETATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Where there is uncertainty as to the boundary of any district contained within this Chapter or as shown on City maps, the following rules shall apply: A. Unless shown to the contrary on a City map, the boundary lines of districts are the center lines of streets, or such lines extended, the center lines of railroad rights-of-way, the center lines of creeks and waterways. Page 2 of 6 2 of 9 FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 01 10 2024 04 : HU PH INDEX NO. EF20231500 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2024 B. Where district boundaries are indicated as approximately following the City boundary line, lot lines, or projections thereof, said boundaries shall be construed to be coincident with such lines. C. If a center line or right-of-way line of a street, highway, railroad, public utility, or watercourse, which is approximately coincident with a district boundary, is moved up to a distance of 50 feet, the district line shall be automatically adjusted to be coincident with such line. D. Where a zoning district boundary line divides a lot or land in single ownership as existing at the time of this enactment, the district requirements on either side of the boundary may be construed, at the property owner's option, as extending into the remaining portion of the property for a distance not exceeding 100 feet. In its May 8, 2023 determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that since there was no uncertainty as to the boundary of district, section (d) was inapplicable, and thus Petitioner was not permitted to extend the TRB zoning district 100 feet into its third parcel. Petitioner submits that such a reading of the ordinance is too restrictive, as it renders the language of the subsections from §240-1.7 as meaningless and is inconsistent with prior interpretations of§240-1.7 by the same governing body, without differentiation. Further, as purely legal determination, deference to the board is not required. Matter of 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Town of Huntington, 140 AD3d 889 [2nd Dept 2016]. In support of its decision, the Zoning Board of Appeals submits that no uncertainty existed as the property line was contiguous with the zoning district boundary line, thus rendering §240-1.7 inapplicable. However, a closer review of this application would render sections A-D as meaningless. For instance, section B reads "where district boundaries are indicated as approximately following the City Page 3 of 6 4 of 9 FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 01 10 2024 04 : BB PMJ INDEX NO. EF20231500 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2024 boundary line, lot lines, or projections thereof, said boundaries shall be construed to be coincident with such lines", but following the Zoning Board's application, such provision could only be applied after an uncertainty as to the zoning boundary was demonstrated. This circular logic is further demonstrated by section D providing an option for the property owner to extend a zone 100 feet, but if uncertainty of such boundary line is required as a condition precedent, it is unclear how a party could measure 100 feet from an uncertain starting point. "A statute such as a zoning ordinance must be `construed as a whole, reading all of its parts together,' all of which should be harmonized to ascertain legislative intent, and it should be given its plain meaning, avoiding a construction that renders superfluous any language in the ordinance." Matter of Saratoga County Economic Opportunity Council, Inc. v Vill. of Ballston Spa Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 112 AD3d 1035, 1037 [3rd Dept. 2013], internal citations omitted. Further, any ambiguity in the language employed must be resolved in favor of the property owner. Id. at 1036. Finally, Petitioner cites the Zoning and Building Inspector as identifying that the clause invoked here requiring uncertainty has not been previously imposed, citing to the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision, affirmed by the Appellate Division in Matter of Lu v. City of Saratoga Springs, 162 AD3d 1291 [3rd Dept. 2018] as one such example. Respondent attempts to distinguish between the Lu case and the facts here based on the zoning boundary not being contiguous with the property line. However, in the Lu matter, the property owner was not required to demonstrate any uncertainty over the zoning boundary before being permitted to extend the zoning Page 4 of 6 4 of 9 FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 01 10 2024 04 : Bg PX INDEX NO. EF20231500 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2024 district the additional 100 feet permitted by subsection D of§240-1.7. Where a zoning board fails to adhere to its own precedents or previous interpretations, it must explain its reason for departure. See, e.g., Matter of Hamptons, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of E. Hampton, 98 AD3d 738 [2nd Dept. 2012]. Here, the Zoning Board of Appeals has enforced the strict language of the introductory clause, requiring the property owner to prove uncertainty, which leads to irrational results. For all of these reasons, Petitioner's motion to annul the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals is granted. This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court. No costs are awarded to any party. Any relief not addressed has been considered and denied. The Court is hereby uploading the original Decision and Order into the NYSCEF system for filing and entry by the County Clerk. Petitioner's counsel is still responsible for serving notice of entry of this Decision and Order in accordance with the Local Protocols for Electronic Filing for Saratoga County. Dated: January 2024 Ballston Spa, New York 4- W ALSH, J.S.C. Papers received and considered: Notice of Petition and Petition to Annul Determination, filed June 7, 2023, with Exhibits A-I Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition to Annual Determination of John J. Henry, Esq. and Jennifer M. Thomas, Esq., dated June 7, 2023 Page 5 of 6 5 of 9 FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 01 10 2024 04 : 89 P INDEX NO. EF20231500 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2024 Answer and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petition to Annul Determination of Anthony J. Izzo, Esq., dated August 10, 2023 Return, pursuant to CPLR §7804(e), filed August 10, 2023 Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Petition to Annual Determination of John J. Henry, Esq. and Jennifer M. Thomas, Esq., dated August 25, 2023 Page 6 of 6 9 of 9