Matter of Rachel Flatley, et al. v Town of Southold, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Municipal land-use and zoning: rezoning town-owned property purchased for recreational purposes to an affordable housing district; challenge under supermajority voting requirements and the public trust doctrine.
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted the Town's motion to dismiss under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211 and CPLR 7804(f) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action; permits dismissal based on documentary evidence; procedural rule governing motions to dismiss Article 78 petitions], dismissed the hybrid CPLR article 78/declaratory complaint, and declared Local Law No. 6-2023 duly enacted by majority vote and not an unlawful alienation of parkland.
The Appellate Division modified by reinstating the first cause of action (Town Law § 265(1)(b) claim), the third cause of action (public trust doctrine claim), and so much of the second cause of action as sought annulment for failure to comply with Town Law § 265(1)(b) [requires a three-fourths vote when a written protest is signed by owners of 20% or more of land immediately adjacent to the area subject to the zoning change], and by denying dismissal of those claims; it remitted for further proceedings.
Accepting the petition’s allegations as true, the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that an adjacent landowner’s protest met the 20% threshold triggering Town Law § 265(1)(b)’s supermajority vote, and the Town’s submissions did not utterly refute that fact. The complaint also adequately alleged implied dedication to parkland—bolstered by the bond resolution’s statement that the property was for future recreational purposes and the Town Code’s definition of recreational areas—supporting the public trust doctrine claim at the pleading stage.
Background
In 2018, Southold purchased 1080 Carroll Avenue, Peconic, funded by $750,000 in bonds; the bond resolution stated the property was “to be used for future Town recreational purposes.” The Town Board later proposed to subdivide and rezone a portion to an affordable housing district. Town residents, including Neal J. Cichanowicz—who allegedly owned an interest in land immediately adjacent—submitted written protests. On April 11, 2023, the Board adopted the rezoning by a 4–2 vote as Local Law No. 6-2023. Petitioners commenced a hybrid CPLR article 78/declaratory action asserting: (1) declaratory relief that the Town violated Town Law § 265(1)(b)’s supermajority requirement; (2) annulment as arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of lawful procedure (including the same supermajority issue); and (3) declaratory relief that the law is void under the public trust doctrine as an unauthorized alienation of parkland.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court granted the Town’s cross-motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 and CPLR 7804(f), dismissed the proceeding/complaint, and declared that the rezoning and Local Law No. 6-2023 were duly enacted by majority vote and did not constitute an alienation of parkland without State legislative approval.
Appellate Division Reversal
Applying the CPLR 3211(a)(7)/7804(f) standard, the Appellate Division held that the pleadings sufficiently alleged that the protest of an adjacent owner (Cichanowicz) alone exceeded the 20% threshold under Town Law § 265(1)(b), and the Town’s materials did not conclusively refute that fact. It likewise found sufficient allegations of implied parkland dedication based on the bond resolution’s recreational-use language and the Town Code’s definition of recreational areas. The court modified by denying dismissal of the first cause of action, the third cause of action, and the portion of the second cause of action based on Town Law § 265(1)(b); it reinstated those claims and remitted for further proceedings, otherwise affirming.
Legal Significance
At the pleading stage, specific allegations that adjacent owners’ protests meet the 20% threshold can trigger Town Law § 265(1)(b)’s supermajority requirement and survive dismissal absent documentary evidence that utterly refutes them. Language in municipal bond resolutions stating that property is for recreational purposes can support an implied parkland dedication under the public trust doctrine, precluding dismissal before discovery. The decision reinforces the deferential standard to petitioners on motions under CPLR 3211/7804(f) and underscores procedural safeguards when rezoning town-owned land.
Challenges to rezoning town-owned land can survive dismissal where plaintiffs plausibly allege (1) a supermajority vote was required under Town Law § 265(1)(b) due to qualifying protests by adjacent owners, and (2) the land was impliedly dedicated to parkland—particularly when acquisition documents state recreational use—supporting a public trust doctrine claim.