Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed an administrative determination approving a community residential facility for six developmentally disabled adults in the Town of Mount Pleasant. The court held that the Town failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the facility would create an overconcentration of similar facilities substantially altering the nature and character of the area, and dismissed the proceeding as against the hearing officer because he was not the final decision-maker.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Peter S. Loomis, the hearing officer who did not issue the final administrative determination, was a proper party to the CPLR article 78 proceeding.
- Whether the Acting Commissioner's determination approving the community residential facility was supported by substantial evidence.
- Whether the Town established by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed facility would create an overconcentration of similar facilities substantially altering the nature and character of the area.
Holdings
- A hearing officer who did not render the final determination under review is not a proper party to the article 78 proceeding.
- The only ground on which a municipality may sustain an objection to establishment of a community residential facility for disabled persons is that the facility would create such a concentration of similar facilities in the area that it would substantially alter the area's nature and character.
- The Acting Commissioner's determination rejecting the Town's objection and approving the facility was supported by substantial evidence.
Key quotations
“"the only ground for sustaining a municipality's objection to the establishment of a community residential facility for the disabled is that it would create such a concentration of similar facilities in an area that it would substantially alter the nature and character of the area"” ([*2])
Factual background
In November 2018, Young Adult Institute, Inc. notified the Town of Mount Pleasant of its intent to establish a community residential facility for six developmentally disabled adults. The Town objected after a public hearing and requested an administrative hearing. Following that hearing, the Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities rejected the Town's objection and approved the proposed facility.
Procedural history
YAI notified the Town that it intended to establish a community residential facility for six developmentally disabled adults. After the Town objected and requested an administrative hearing under Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34(c)(5), the Acting Commissioner rejected the objection and approved the facility. The Town commenced an article 78 proceeding, and Supreme Court transferred it to the Appellate Division under CPLR 7804(g).