Opinion ID: 2228954
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bower Associates v Town of Pleasant Valley

Text: Bower Associates, a housing developer, owns approximately 91 acres in Dutchess County88 acres in the Town of Poughkeepsie and three adjacent acres in the Town of Pleasant Valley. In August 1999, Poughkeepsie approved Bower's plan to subdivide the land and construct the Stratford Farms subdivision 134 detached single-family homes and 51 townhouses. [1] The project has two access roadsone wholly within Poughkeepsie, the second partially in Pleasant Valley, through the three-acre Bower Associates subdivision. Poughkeepsie's final approval of Stratford Farms was conditioned on approval by Pleasant Valley of the access road partially within that Town. In January 1999, Bower applied to the Pleasant Valley Planning Board for permission to subdivide its three acres there to create three residential homes and access roads for use by both Bower subdivisions. In January 2000, the Pleasant Valley Planning Board denied Bower's application, citing numerous environmental concerns relating to the Stratford Farms subdivision. In Bower's challenge under CPLR article 78, Supreme Court directed approval of the subdivision plan, concluding that the Planning Board's actions were arbitrary in that its determination was not based on environmental concerns unique to the Bower Associates subdivision. Rather, the determination was driven largely by community pressure because the Stratford Farms subdivision located in the Town of Poughkeepsie would provide no tax benefit to the Town of Pleasant Valley. The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing that Bower met all the conditions needed for approval of its subdivision application in both this and the related Stratford [Farms] subdivision ( Matter of Bower Assoc. v Planning Bd. of Town of Pleasant Val., 289 AD2d 575, 575 [2d Dept 2001]). Its article 78 relief in hand, in March 2001 Bower commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 against the Town of Pleasant Valley and its Planning Board for $2 million in damages, alleging a denial of procedural and substantive due process, equal protection and just compensation. Supreme Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding no cognizable property interest entitling Bower to substantive due process protection, both because the Board had discretion in granting subdivision approval and because defendants violated no rights protected by the United States Constitution (304 AD2d 259 [2d Dept 2003]). Further, the Appellate Division dismissed Bower's takings and equal protection claims, concluding that Bower alleged no unlawful taking, and failed to show that the subject property was treated differently from other similarly situated properties. We now affirm.