Source: http://downbigmovies.blogspot.com/2012/11/
Timestamp: 2017-11-21 04:28:05
Document Index: 385215077

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 197', '§ 2', '§ 1041', '§ 161', '§ 102', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 197', '§ 2', '§ 1041']

November 2012 | Big Movies
On a fence on 2nd Place, a pair of children's gloves waiting to be reunited with their owner.
NYSDEC is the only agency that has the right to review and provide comments to EPA on EPA’s Superfund clean-up plan prior to its release, which is expected by the end of 2012. The CAG encourages a strong public turnout at this meeting to show NYSDEC the community’s concern that the clean-up be done right. Questions and comments will be collected from members of the public at the meeting to be answered by NYSDEC as time permits, or to be submitted for later response.
Label: Brooklyn, EPA, Gowanus Canal, Gowanus Canal Community Advisory Group, NYS DEC
Despite a hurricane and a nor-easter some roses are still blooming. I spotted this one on Carroll Street.
Judith Enck, EPA Regional Manager of Region 2 and Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez
To address continuing concerns about the floodwater and the sludge left behind when the Gowanus Canal, an EPA Superfund site, overflowed its banks during Hurricane Sandy last month, Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez held an informational meeting for local residents last night at PS 32 on Hoyt Street. The meeting was co-sponsored by State Senator Daniel Squadron, State Senator Velmanette Montgomery, Assemblywoman Joan Millman, Councilmember Steve Levin, and Councilmember Brad Lander.
Congresswoman Velázquez spoke of the need to set public policy and of a revision of the type of development allowed along the coastline. "This is a new reality" she stated. "It offers an opportunity for recovery, preservation and mitigation."
*DCP’s consideration and administrative approval of “minor modification” applications outside the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure1 (“ULURP”) is ultra vires and therefore null and void.
*DCP’s determination does not carry the force of law because the rule that DCP applies to evaluate proposed modifications was not adopted pursuant to the strict requirements of the City Administrative Procedure Act2 (“CAPA”).
*DCP's failure to account for the proposed increase in floor area, a mandatory consideration under DCP's impermissible rule, "was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of applicable law. " N.Y.C.P.L.R. 7803 (3).
BLS Legal Services Corp. Community Development Clinic
I. DCP’s consideration and administrative approval of “minor modification” applications outside the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure1 (“ULURP”) is ultra vires and therefore null and void.
II. DCP’s determination does not carry the force of law because the rule that DCP applies to evaluate proposed modifications was not adopted pursuant to the strict requirements of the City Administrative Procedure Act2 (“CAPA”).
I. DCP’s consideration and administrative approval of “minor modification” applications outside ULURP is ultra vires and therefore null and void.
DCP argues that a “minor modification” to a previously approved special permit does not require a new ULURP application and is not subject to City Council review. See Karnovsky Letter. Admittedly, DCP has the authority to approve “minor modifications” to special permit applications during the ULURP process.
This is apparent in Windsor Owners Corp. v. City Council of City of New York, 23 Misc.3d 490 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. 2009). There, as is proper under the ULURP rules, the City Council proposed modifications to a ULURP application and “remanded” it to the City Planning Commission (“CPC”) for review. The CPC applied the criteria set forth in 62 R.C.N.Y § 2-06(g) (5), to determine that the modifications were “minor,” meaning that the plan did not have to go through ULURP again and was not subject to additional public hearing. However, the CPC’s determination was subject to, and ultimately received, City Council approval.
The Karnovsky Letter failed to cite any legal authority that would extend Windsor’s holding to previously approved ULURP applications. If DCP relies on Section 2-06 of the ULURP rules as a textual basis for its “authority” here, such reliance is misplaced. As Windsor makes clear, that section applies to proposed modifications during the ULURP process, before the City Council makes its final decision.
In addition, even if DCP’s authority to approve “minor modifications” extended to previously approved special permits, The Karnovsky letter also failed to explain why such approval is not subject to City Council review. While it is true that not all special permit applications or modifications thereto are automatically subject to Council approval, City Council may, in any case, “take up” the application for an up or down vote. See New York City Charter §§ 197-d(b)(2)-(3) & 197-c(a)(4); 62 R.C.N.Y § 2-06(g)(5)(ii). Thus, DCP’s stated course of action -- to consider and approve TLG’s application despite the fact it is outside ULURP -- is outside the scope of its legislatively delegated authority and is therefore null and void.3 See Eastport Alliance, 13 A.D.3d at 529; Old Dock Assoc. v. Sullivan, 150 A.D.2d 695, 697 (2d Dep’t. 1989).
II. DCP’s determination does not carry the force of law because the rule that DCP applies to evaluate proposed modifications was not adopted pursuant to CAPA’s strict requirements.
Even if legislature had authorized DCP’s administrative approval mechanism, the standard by which DCP evaluates proposed modifications is a “rule” subject to CAPA4, and was not adopted in accordance with CAPA’s strict rulemaking requirements. CAPA provides the following definition:
a. "Rule" shall include, but not be limited to, any statement or communication which prescribes... (iii) standards for the issuance, suspension or revocation of a license or permit...
N.Y.C. Charter § 1041 (emphasis added).
This definition is broad by design. See Report of the New York City Charter Revision Commission: December 1986—November 1988, at 86 (Apr. 1989) (“The term “general applicability” encompasses any statement or communication that applies similarly to members of a class, regardless of the number of members in any such class....The definition is intended to be construed broadly to accommodate the act’s basic objectives.”).
New York Courts have broadly interpreted CAPA’s definition of “rule” as well. In 1700 York Assoc. v. Kaskel, 182 Misc.2d 586 (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Cty. 1999), the Court found that a city agency’s policy prohibiting the keeping of ferrets as domestic pets was a “rule” under CAPA. The agency based its policy on its interpretation of 24 R.C.N.Y. § 161.01(a), which prohibits keeping an “animal of a species which is wild, ferocious, fierce, dangerous or naturally inclined to do harm” in a residential dwelling. Finding no previous judicial interpretations of the term “general applicability” under CAPA, the Court turned to judicial interpretations under the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) § 102(2)(a)(i), since the “term is used so similarly” there. Id. at 593. The court provided as follows:
A statement “of general applicability” is “a fixed, general principle to be applied by an administrative agency without regard to other facts and circumstances relevant to the regulatory scheme.” The statement need not regulate the general public; if a policy is to be “invariably applied across-the-board” to the segments of the population within its ambit “without regard to individual circumstances or mitigating factors.... [it] falls plainly within the definition of a ‘rule.’
Since the policy in question extended “invariably across the board” to anyone who had a pet ferret, the Court concluded that this decision constituted a “rule” of “general applicability” which was not adopted pursuant to CAPA’s rulemaking requirements and was thus not entitled to the “force and effect of law.” Id. at 593-94 (quoting Schwartfigure v. Hartnett, 83 N.Y.2d 296, 301 [1994]). See Cordero v Corbisiero, 80 N.Y.2d 771, 773 (1992) (The Court of Appeals struck down the State Racing and Wagering Board’s policy of imposing one-race suspensions on horse jockeys for certain infractions, concluding it was a “rule” under SAPA because it was one “of general applicability which prescribe[d] a procedure or practice requirement of the agency.”)
The New York County Supreme Court in Callahan v. Carey, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 30400(U) (Trial Order), defined the contours of CAPA’s “rule” definition, including a description of the characteristics that distinguish a “rule” from an “interpretive policy” not subject to CAPA. The Court, also relying on interpretations of SAPA for guidance, explained as follows:
CAPA's rule making process is mandated when an agency establishes precepts that remove its discretion by dictating specific results in particular circumstances. Only a fixed general principle to be applied by an administrative agency, without regard to other facts and circumstances relevant to the regulatory scheme of the statute it administers, constitutes a rule or regulation that must be formally adopted. Rules are not implicated where there is the ability for ad hoc decision making or where decision makers are vested with significant discretion to independently exercise their professional judgment. Nor are rules implicated by interpretative statements, or statements of general policy, that have no legal effect.
Citing the Court of Appeals, The Supreme Court acknowledged that rules are “generally broader and [have] more direct public impact than.... interpretative policies,” and there is “no clear bright line between [the two].” Id. The inquiries necessary to make the distinction, therefore, are “necessarily circumstance driven,” and “turn on matters of degree.” Id.
In that case, the procedure in question “sets forth the standards by which [the Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”)] will determine whether individuals who apply for temporary housing assistance are eligible.” Id. The policy stated that “DHS will utilize this Procedure to determine whether an applicant for THA is an eligible homeless person. This determination will be based on an assessment of whether the applicant has a viable housing option where s/he can live even on a temporary basis...” Callahan, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 30400(U) (emphasis in original). DHS is then required to make its determination based upon the “totality of the applicant's circumstances, with an analysis of each applicant's situation in accordance with all relevant factors including those enumerated in [the policy].” Id. Despite the ad hoc nature of the standard and its “broad language,” the court concluded the procedure was nonetheless a “rule” subject to CAPA because it applied to all applicants for temporary housing and was based on “criteria that are outcome determinative...” Id.
DCP’s criteria for determining whether proposed modifications are “minor” are those set forth in the ULURP rules governing the CPC’s authority to determine whether modifications proposed by Council during ULURP, require the initiation of a new ULURP application. The rules provide as follows:
[The City Planning Commission] shall have fifteen (15) days to review [Council’s proposed modification] and to determine: ... (ii) whether the modification requires the initiation of a new application. In making this determination, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed modification: (A) increases the height, bulk, envelope or floor area of any building or buildings, decreases open space, or alters conditions or major elements of a site plan in actions (such as a zoning special permit) which require the approval or limitation of these elements; (B) increases the lot size or geographic area to be covered by the action; (C) makes necessary additional waivers, permits, approvals, authorizations or certifications under sections of the Zoning Resolution, or other laws or regulations not previously acted upon in the application ...
If the Commission has determined that no additional review is necessary ..., it shall so report to the Council. The Commission may also transmit any comment or recommendation with respect to the substance of the modification, and any proposed further amendment to the modification which it deems as necessary or appropriate.
62 R.C.N.Y § 2-06(g)(5)(ii) (emphasis added).
As case law and legislative history make clear, DCP’s informal “adoption” of these criteria to evaluate whether a proposed modification is “minor” constitutes a “rule” subject to CAPA for several reasons. First, DCP concedes that these considerations generally apply to all applications for “minor” modifications. Second, as in Callahan, the use of the word “shall” in 62 R.C.N.Y § 2-06(g)(5)(ii) removes DCP’s discretion by mandating the consideration, which necessarily renders “certain” of these criteria to be “outcome determinative.” See Callahan, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 30400(U). In fact, DCP’s policy has stronger characteristics of a “rule” than did the policy in Callahan, since one might argue that the policy in that case implicitly allowed some level of discretion insofar as determinations were to be based on the “totality of the applicant’s circumstances.” Id. No such language appears in 62 R.C.N.Y § 2-06(g)(5)(ii).5 Finally, CAPA’s basic goal -- “to provide an open process in agency rulemaking” -- supports finding DCP’s policy to be a “rule.” See New York City Charter Revision Commission, Summary of Final Proposals 6, 1988. Accordingly, since DCP’s rule was not promulgated according to CAPA’s strict requirements, including those for notice, comment, public hearing, and publication, it does not carry the “force and effect of law.” 1700 York Assoc., 182 Misc.2d at 586.
For all the reasons outlined above, FROGG respectfully requests that DCP takes no further action on TLG’s application, which includes making a determination on the application at the upcoming City Planning Commission review session on Monday, October 29, 2012, as such action exceeds DCP’s statutory authority, violates CAPA, and is arbitrary and capricious in violation of applicable law.
Grady Southard, Legal Intern
Jeffrey Ling, Legal Intern
Sarah Udashkin, Legal Intern
David Karnovsky, Esq.
Craig Hammerman, District Manager, Brooklyn Community Board 6 Purnima Kapur, Director, DCP Brooklyn office
Aline Fader, Planner, DCP Brooklyn office
Hon. Velmanette Montgomery, New York State Senator, 18th Senate District Hon. Nydia Velázquez, U.S. Representative, 12th Congressional District
1 N.Y.C. Charter §§ 197-c & -d; 62 R.C.N.Y § 2-01 et seq.
2 N.Y.C. Charter §§ 1041 - 1046
Label: Amanda Burden, Brooklyn Law School Community Development Clinic, Friends And Residents of Greater Gowanus, Lightstone Group
Lovely little maple
Spotted on Douglass Street