Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Matter of Calverton Manor, LLC v. Town of Riverhead
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 2608Docket: 2014-10170
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 18, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Matter of Calverton Manor, LLC v Town of Riverhead, the Appellate Division upheld a lower court's ruling that denied Calverton Manor's motion for summary judgment and dismissed its petition challenging the Town Board's adoption of a Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan aimed to protect open space and farmland while directing development to specific areas, which included eliminating certain permitted uses on the petitioner’s property critical to its site plan application. Despite the petitioner’s claims that the Town Board violated General Municipal Law and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the court found that the Town Board had properly referred the plan to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for review, as required by law. The Supreme Court's decision affirmed that the Comprehensive Plan was a valid exercise of the Town Board's police and zoning powers. The order and judgment of the Supreme Court were affirmed with costs. Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan were included in the original referral, confirming that the Town Board adequately fulfilled its duty to provide a comprehensive statement of its proposed actions. The court agreed with the Supreme Court's finding that the Town Board adhered to both procedural and substantive requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). SEQRA requires strict compliance with its procedural standards, and the petitioner failed to identify any violations by the Town Board in the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Town Board's decision to adopt the Comprehensive Plan separately from zoning amendments was not deemed improper segmentation, as the draft and final generic environmental impact statements (GEISs) analyzed the cumulative impacts of the proposed zoning changes. Judicial review under SEQRA is constrained to assessing the legality of agency procedures, the identification of relevant environmental concerns, and whether a reasoned basis for decisions was provided. The agency's determination should only be annulled if found arbitrary or unsupported by evidence. The draft and final GEISs adequately addressed mitigation measures, reasonable alternatives, and conditions for future actions, meeting the necessary detail requirements. The petitioner did not demonstrate violations of Town Law in the Comprehensive Plan's formulation or adoption. The Comprehensive Plan was upheld as a valid exercise of the Town Board's police and zoning powers, supported by a strong presumption of constitutionality for legislative acts and local laws, which can only be overturned if they do not significantly relate to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare objectives. The case involves a challenge to the Comprehensive Plan's designation of agricultural protected zones on cultivated and undeveloped land in Schenectady. The court found that this designation aligns with several legitimate purposes, including the preservation and promotion of agriculture, maintaining 'agricultural integrity,' and conserving the Town's rural character. The petitioner argued that the plan exceeded the Town Board's zoning authority, but this was deemed without merit. Other arguments presented by the petitioner were either unfounded or improperly raised in a reply brief. The decision reflects the court's support for the Comprehensive Plan's objectives in relation to agricultural protection and zoning authority.