From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allens Creek/Corbett's Glen Preservation Group v. Town of Penfield Planning Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 29, 1998
249 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 29, 1998

Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Polito, J. — CPLR art 78.

Present — Denman, P.J., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and petition reinstated. Memorandum: On September 5, 1996, respondent, Town of Penfield Planning Board (Planning Board), adopted a resolution approving a site plan and subdivision application upon the applicant's compliance with 39 conditions. A letter notifying the applicant of the decision of the Planning Board was filed in the Town Clerk's office the following day but the minutes of the September 5th meeting of the Planning Board incorporating its resolution were not filed in the Town Clerk's office until September 11, 1996. Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding on October 10, 1996 to challenge approval of the site plan and subdivision application. The Planning Board moved to dismiss the proceeding, asserting that the letter "Notice of Decision" filed on September 6, 1996 constituted its "decision" and that petitioners failed to commence the proceeding within 30 days of the filing of the "Decision" with the Town Clerk, as required by Town Law § 274-a (11) and § 282.

Supreme Court erred in granting that motion. The letter "Notice of Decision" was merely notice that a decision was made. It did not set forth the conditions imposed by the Planning Board or the vote of the Planning Board. In the circumstances of this case, the minutes of the September 5th meeting of the Planning Board incorporating the resolution of the Planning Board and its vote on that resolution constitute the "decision" (see, Matter of King v. Chmielewski, 146 A.D.2d 102, 105, affd 76 N.Y.2d 182; Matter of Powell v. Town of Coeymans, 238 A.D.2d 788; Matter of Pickett v. Town of Tusten Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 169 A.D.2d 906, 907; see also, Matter of Kennedy v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 78 N.Y.2d 1083, 1084; Matter of De Bellis v. Luney, 128 A.D.2d 778, 779; cf., Matter of McCartney v. Incorporated Vil. of E. Williston, 149 A.D.2d 597, 598). The proceeding was timely commenced within 30 days of the filing of those minutes with the Town Clerk (see, Town Law § 274-a; § 282).


Summaries of

Allens Creek/Corbett's Glen Preservation Group v. Town of Penfield Planning Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 29, 1998
249 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Allens Creek/Corbett's Glen Preservation Group v. Town of Penfield Planning Board

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ALLENS CREEK/CORBETT'S GLEN PRESERVATION GROUP et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Apr 29, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 222

Citing Cases

Homer DG, LLC v. Planning Bd. of Vill. of Homer

No particular form of decision is mandated by statute (see Terry Rice, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons…

Homer DG, LLC v. Planning Bd. of the Vill. of Homer

No particular form of decision is mandated by statute (see Terry Rice, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons…