Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Comprehensive Plan Requirement

By Stewart E. Sterk
July 01, 2018

Town Law Section 272-a(11) requires that all town land use regulations be in accordance with a comprehensive plan “adopted pursuant to this section.” Village Law section 7-722(11) includes a virtually identical provision for village land use regulations. Does a local law requiring site plan review satisfy the statutory requirement when a town (or village) has enacted neither a formal comprehensive plan for a zoning ordinance? In Bovee v. Town of Hadley Planning Board, 160 AD3d 1102, decided in April, the Third Department upheld a site plan review statute, once again calling into question whether the statutory requirement of a “comprehensive plan” has any teeth.

The Bovee Case

The Town of Hadley does not have a zoning ordinance, but it enacted a local law authorizing the town planning board to review site plans for all but a few enumerated land uses. The local law sets the requirements for site plan approval applications, and lists factors the planning board may consider in reviewing an application. Andrew Bovee and his parents own adjacent parcels in the town. Andrew processes, sells, and stores firewood on his property and, in 2008, obtained site plan approval for business activities on condition that he store 7 to 10 cords of firewood on the property. The town subsequently brought enforcement proceedings against Andres, contending that he was storing excessive firewood in a disruptive location. Andrew then sought site plan approval authorizing him to process and store additional firewood, and his parents separately sought site plan approval for delivery of firewood that Andrew would process and sell. After a public hearing, the Planning Board approved the application, but only subject to conditions. Andrew and his parents then brought Article 78 proceedings and declaratory judgment actions challenging the conditional approvals on the ground that the Planning Board lacked the authority to issue them. Supreme Court annulled the determinations, and the town appealed.

The Third Department, in an opinion by Judge Eugene Devine, reversed, dismissed the Article 78 proceeding, and declared that the relevant provision of the town Code was valid. The court concluded that the absence of a zoning ordinance was not an impediment to enactment of a site plan review ordinance because section 274-a of the Town Law allows a town board to authorize site plan review “as part of a zoning ordinance or local law.” (emphasis by the court). The court then held that the site plan review provision satisfied the statutory comprehensive plan requirement because it stated general goals (promoting health safety and welfare and ensuring “maintenance and continued development of the Town”) and provided for advancement of those goals by regulating land use activity “through review and approval of site plans.” Once the court concluded that the site plan provision was itself valid, the court had little trouble sustaining the conditions imposed by the planning board, noting that fencing requirements and limits on firewood storage were responsive to the complaints of neighbors, and were not arbitrary or capricious.

The Comprehensive Plan Requirement

The significance of the statutory requirement that zoning and other land use regulation be in accordance with a comprehensive plan has long been the subject of controversy, both in New York and elsewhere. In Udell v. Haas, 21 N.Y.2d 463, the Court of Appeals invoked the requirement that zoning be in accordance with a comprehensive plan to invalidate an amendment rezoning property that had long been zoned for business use. In holding that the newly-imposed residential classification was not in accordance with a comprehensive plan, the court emphasized that the plan requirement was designed to protect landowners “from arbitrary restrictions on the use of his property which can result from the pressures which outraged voters can bring to bear on public officials.” The court emphasized that a “key factor” in evaluating whether the comprehensive plan requirement has been met is “whether forethought has been given to the community's land use problems.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Judge Rules Shaquille O'Neal Will Face Securities Lawsuit for Promotion, Sale of NFTs Image

A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.

Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners Image

Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.

Supreme Court Rules Rejection of Trademark License Does Not Rescind Rights of Licensee Image

Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC The question is whether a debtor's rejection of its agreement granting a license "terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor's breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law."