When their rezoning application was denied, Robert Schlossin and Creekside Development (plaintiffs) sought a declaration from the Erie County Supreme Court that the Town of Marilla exceeded its authority and that local zoning law was unconstitutional.
Creekside, the property's purchaser, couldn't proceed with its plan to develop a housing subdivision -- consisting of 32 single-family homes on Schlossin's 45-acre parcel of land -- as the property had been zoned as an "agricultural district."
When it denied the request, the Town Board explained that the proposed re-zoning would be inconsistent with its plan to preserve the Town 's "agricultural integrity."
After the Erie County Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs' case, an appeal to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, ensued. The AD4 explained that the Supreme Court properly denied relief on the merits, but erred by not making a formal finding or "declaration."
Because the restrictions had been promulgated to preserve the Town 's agricultural integrity, the AD4 concluded that the Town was within its authority to regulate zoning in order to promote the community's general welfare.
The AD4 also rejected the plaintiffs' contention that their application's denial deprived them of their substantive due process rights. In order to establish that kind of violation, a party must demonstrate more than "a mere expectation or hope," a "vested property interest must exit." Without that right or entitlement, the AD4 held that the plaintiffs' constitutional rights had not been violated.
It seems that when it comes to issues of integrity, the AD4 remains unwilling to compromise.
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Schlossin v Town of Marilla