►
From YouTube: Beacon Zoning Board Training 6-22-22
Description
City of Beacon Zoning board training session reviewing the statute of limitations on article 78 and case examples.
B
A
A
This
is
under
general
city
law,
section
81c,
any
person
or
persons
jointly
or
severally
aggrieved
by
any
decision
of
the
board
of
appeals
or
any
officer,
Department
board
or
Bureau
of
the
city
May
apply
to
the
Supreme
Court
for
review
by
a
proceedings
under
article
78
of
the
Civil
practice
law
and
rules
or
the
cplr.
As
we
often
say,
such
proceedings
shall
be
instituted
within
30
days
after
the
filing
of
a
decision
of
the
board
in
the
office
of
the
city.
Clerk
30
days
is
referred
to
as
the
statue
of
limitations.
A
That's
the
time
period,
you
have
to
file
your
article
78
petition
and
that
30
days
starts
once
you
file
the
decision
with
the
city
clerk.
A
So
a
zoning
or
planning
board
concludes
its
review
of
a
land
use
application
when
it
renders
its
final
decision
on
the
application.
The
decision
may
be
in
the
form
of
a
vote
by
board
members
taken
at
a
public
meeting
or
in
a
written
decision
approved
by
the
board.
Like
we
said
last
month,
not
every
board
does
resolutions
like
we
do
general
city
law,
section
81
A9
states
that
the
requisite
filing
must
take
place
within
five
business
days
after
the
day
the
decision
is
rendered.
A
A
That's
an
that's
a
specific
situation
so
from
your
facts,
you
state
that
the
variance
was
never
acted
upon,
so
our
resolutions
have
an
expiration.
That's
why
applicants
have
to
come
back
and
get
an
extension
if
they
haven't
built
what
the
variance
was
granted
for.
Let's.
B
A
C
If,
obviously,
things
get
rezoned
something
less
change,
does
a
zoning
law
change.
C
Conditions,
you
know
terms
and
then
they
rezone
that
area.
Do
you
need
a
new
variance
at
that
point,
you.
A
D
A
A
While
so
the
use
variants
would
switch
would
go
with
owners,
it
still
goes
with
the
land,
but
now
it's
specific
to
the
use.
So
if
the
use
is
changing,
that
use
variance
is
no
longer
going
to
be
applicable
like
if
you
get
a
use,
variance
to
build
residential
in
a
business
district
and
then
you
go
and
you
change
it
to
business.
A
All
right,
so
then
we
talked
about
some
some
case
law.
Examples
specifically
about
you
know
in
this
case
was
the
Statue
of
fast
versus
statute
of
limitations,
told
so
these
cases
kind
of
represent
examples
to
the
general
rule,
so
I'll
just
just
kind
of
run
over
what
we
learned
last
month
briefly.
So
in
this
case
with
the
village
of
Great
Neck,
you
know
this
is
about
the
village,
we're
we're
citing
to
section
7-712
C1,
which
is
the
same
as
general
city
law,
section
81
C1,
which
is
obviously
the
applicable
Statute
in
our
case.
A
So
that
section
does
not
require
that
the
board
determinations
indicate
how
each
board
member
voted.
So
when
you
are
filing
a
decision,
it
doesn't
have
to
indicate
how
the
members
are
voting.
A
In
any
event,
it
is
Undisputed
that,
in
accordance
with
the
Village
Law
or
the
city
law,
such
information
was
contained
in
the
minutes
of
the
board
meeting.
So
they
had.
The
minutes
are
where
you
have
to
include
the
determination.
So
this
this
case
involved.
You
know
whether
the
statute
limitation
was
told
because
the
decision
failed
to
indicate
how
each
of
the
board
members
of
the
zoning
board
voted,
and
the
answer
was
no.
A
A
So
general
city
law
permits
a
person
aggrieved
by
a
zoning
board
of
appeals
to
to
appeal
a
decision
in
an
article
78
proceeding,
but
requires
the
proceeding
to
be
instituted
within
30
days.
So
in
this
case
for
Croton
on
the
Hudson,
the
appellant
commenced,
the
article
78
proceeding
37
days
after
the
minutes
incorporating
the
respondents
decision
were
filed
in
the
office
of
the
village
clerk.
The
court
of
appeals
held
that
the
filing
of
the
minutes
was
sufficient
to
begin
the
running
of
the
statute
of
limitations
and
that
the
appellant's
claim
is
consequently
time
barred.
A
So
as
long
as
the
meeting
minutes
reflected
the
decision
of
each
board
member,
that
is
what
started
the
statute
limitations
in
this
case,
like
I
said
not
every
board.
Does
you
know
formal
resolutions
or
formal
determinations?
They
just
incorporate
that
their
decision
into
the
minute.
So
if
that's
what's
filed
first,
that's
what
would
start
the
clock.
A
No,
we
filed
the
resolutions
and
we
file
the
resolutions
first.
Yes,
so
as
soon
as
a
meeting
passes,
so
usually
it's
Tuesday
David
has
a
routine
of
going
to
the
office
by
Friday
and
they'll,
get
Friday
they'll
get
filed
as
soon
as
he
files
so
typically
on.
D
A
So
that's
a
great
question
because
we're
we
are
required
to
eventually
mail
it
to
the
applicant,
but
there's
no
time
frame
in
which
we
have
to
do
that
by
it
is
the
applicant
or
an
interested
neighbor.
It's
their
responsibility
to
contact
the
city
clerk's
office,
to
obtain
the
filed
copy
of
the
resolution
or
to
contact
the
planning
department
or
the
the
Planning
and
Building
Department
as
well.
So
you
know
the
best
way
would
be
to
to
call
or
to
to
submit
a
foil.
You
know,
but
your
risk.
A
All
right,
so
in
this
case
for
the
town
of
Tustin,
the
question
was:
was
there
enough
information
to
start
this
time?
Start
the
statue
of
limitations
clock,
so
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
granted
a
use
variance
to
allow
construction
of
a
septic
waste
transfer
station
in
a
residential
subdivision.
In
the
case,
the
applicable
minutes
were
not
time
stamped
in
support
of
its
motion
to
dismiss
the
zba
submitted,
various
invoices
and
affidavits
from
parties
with
knowledge
of
the
date
of
filing.
A
So
a
mere
delivery
of
the
meeting
minutes,
reflecting
the
board's
vote
to
the
municipal
clerk
is
equivalent
to
filing
of
the
decision.
So,
even
though
an
applicant
is
unaware
of
the
delivery
of
the
minutes
to
the
clerk,
and
even
though
no
copy
of
the
minutes
is
mailed
to
the
applicant,
it's
still
enough
to
start
the
statute
of
limitations.
A
B
A
A
A
I
actually
recently
have
had
a
case
where
we
received
a
Time
stamped
copy
of
a
resolution,
and
we
argued
that
you
know
the
clock
started
when
that
when
that
document
was
stamped,
the
other
side
argued
that
there's
actually
a
there
was
actually
another
resolution
that
was
filed.
That
was
stamped
afterwards
and
the
second
stamped
resolution
was
the
final
resolution.
I
get
Incorporated
changes
that
had
been
discussed
versus
the
other
one
had
a
couple
blanks,
it
wasn't
a
wasn't
signed.
A
All
it
had
was
the
you
know
stamp
by
the
stamp
by
the
clerk,
and
so
we
argue
that
it
doesn't
matter
that
it's
not
the
final.
It
doesn't
matter
that
it's
not
signed,
it's
it's
stamped
like
the
clock
starts
and
they
missed
it.
We
lost
this
was
at
Supreme
Court
at
the
base
level.
So
this
can
go.
We
could
see
how
this
unfolds
in
the
future
if
it
continues,
but
at
least
at
the
Supreme
Court
level.
They
said
you
know
that
that
doesn't
count
the
applicant
did
their
dude.
A
We
were
the
applicant,
the
other
side
did
their
due
diligence
to
follow
up
with
the
clerk
repeatedly
and
the
copy
they
were
provided
was.
The
final
copy
did
have
the
stamp,
so
it
was
reasonable
for
them
to
act
as
that,
as
if
that
started,
the
statue
of
limitations
and
that
we
were
wrong.
D
A
So
it
depends
on
the
procedures
of
the
municipality.
You
know
we
have
a
procedure
where
we
like
to
and
granted
it's
not.
The
resolutions
are
not
required
to
be
signed,
but
we
have
a
procedure
where
we
sign
them
and
then
we
file
them
and
that's.
D
A
A
A
C
A
Down
to
talk
about
these
new
questions
that
we
didn't
get
to
last
time,
so
in
this
case
on
September
8th
1999,
the
decision
of
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
denying
the
petitioner's
application
for
variance
was
filed
in
the
office
of
the
town,
clerk
of
the
town
of
orange
town
on
November
5th
1999
petitioners
filed
a
notice
of
petition
and
verified
petition.
Those
are
the
documents
you
filed
to
initiate
your
article
78.
A
Moreover,
petitioners
also
noted
that
they
had
conversations
with
a
clerk
inquiring
that
the
stat
status
of
the
zba
decision
prior
to
its
issue
issuance
the
clerk
allegedly
told
petitioners
that
there
was
a
delay
with
the
stenographer
and
that
once
ready,
the
decision
would
be
mailed
out.
Was
the
statue
of
limitations
told
because
the
town
failed
to
mail.
The
decision
to
petitioners
within
five
days
of
it
being
rendered.
D
A
Yeah,
so
the
the
Town
law,
just
like
city
law,
requires
that
a
zba
decision
be
mailed
to
the
applicant
within
five
days
of
it
being
rendered.
There
is
no
dispute
that
the
30-day
statute
of
limitations
is
a
rigorous
one
that
can
have
a
devastating
effect
upon
a
party
who
fails
to
comply
with
it.
Yet
the
court
has
no
Authority
whatsoever
to
extend
a
statute
of
limitations,
no
matter
how
compelling
the
reasons
for
the
delay
may
be.
A
A
So
the
court
cites
to
language
that
appears
in
the
practice
commentaries
the
the
author
of
The
Practice
commentaries.
His
name
is
Terry
rice,
he
writes
most
of
them.
Is
it
all
of
them?
No
anyway,
his
name
comes
up
a
lot.
A
He
writes
that
a
proceeding
must
be
commenced
within
30
days
after
a
decision
is
filed
and
the
statute
contains
no
qualification
or
toll
with
respect
to
the
mailing
of
a
copy
of
a
decision
to
an
applicant,
although
it
would
seem
to
be
unfair
and
inequitable
for
a
board
to
take
advantage
of
the
short
statue
limitations
when
a
copy
of
a
decision
has
not
been
mailed
to
an
applicant
as
a
result
of
the
language
of
the
of
the
city
Co
of
the
city
law,
one
should
not
depend
upon
the
mailing
of
a
copy
of
the
decision
and
must
conscientiously
seek
to
ascertain
the
actual
date
of
filing
a
decision.
A
I
mean
we've.
We
mentioned
that
several
times
just
tonight,
so
it's
important
that
although
a
municipal
clerk
is
mandated
by
law
to
mail,
a
copy
of
a
zoning
or
planning
board
decision
to
the
applicant,
the
statutes
that
direct
that
are
proceeding
to
challenge
such
decisions
be
commenced
within
30
days
after
the
decision
is
filed,
contain
no
toll.
If
the
clerk
is
delinquent
in
mailing
the
decision
to
the
applicant
or
fails
to
mail,
the
decision
at
all
so
there's
no
real
consequences.
A
All
right,
in
this
case
petitioners
commenced
a
an
article
78
proceeding
in
1995,
challenging
respondents
refusal
to
remove
a
condition
placed
upon
the
granting
of
an
area
variance
to
petitioners
in
1993.
in
1993.
The
zoning
board
of
appeals
approved
a
variance
to
allow
petitioners
to
build
a
24
foot
by
30
foot
garage
on
their
property
in
the
town
of
Ballston,
despite
setbacks
of
less
than
the
minimum,
a
minimum
otherwise
permitted
in
the
town.
A
Zoning
law,
on
the
condition
that
the
structure
be
used
only
as
a
garage
for
storage
and
was
not
to
be
used
for
living
or
office
quarters.
No
challenge
did
the
conditions
imposed
were
brought
by
petitioners
in
1993..
Everyone
said
Thank
you
and
walked
away.
The
issuance
was
renewed
by
petitioners
when
they
sought
to
have
this
restriction,
removed
and
sought
permission
to
build
a
carport
on
the
property.
A
No
action
was
taken
by
respondents
on
the
request
and
the
cplr
article
78
proceeding
followed,
so
just
to
summarize
that
a
little
better,
the
property
owners
went
back
to
the
zba
years
later
and
said:
can
you
guys
remove
this
condition?
We
don't
we
don't
want
it
anymore.
We
want
to.
We
want
to
change
this
up
and
build
this
carport
and
the
zba
said
no
we're
not
We're
Not
Gonna
We're
not
gonna
hit.
A
A
That
they
probably
could
have
done
that
in
this
case
they
did
not.
They
simply
tried
to
mend
the
resolution
and
the
zba
just
didn't
make
a
decision.
They
didn't
even
hear
it.
You
know
they're,
like
that's,
that's
your
variance,
that's
it.
They
probably
could
have
applied
for
a
new
variance,
I,
don't
know
how
that
would
have
played
out,
but
in
this
in
this
case
and
you're
right,
you
could
have
you
you
can
do
anything.
You
want
whether
you're
gonna
go
forward.
I
guess
that's
the
question
so
in
this
case
the
zoning
board.
A
We
all
know
that
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
is
authorized
to
impose
reasonable
conditions
as
part
of
any
variance
approval.
The
board
of
appeals
shall
and
Grant
in
the
language,
specifically
States.
The
board
of
appeals
shall,
in
the
granting
of
both
use,
variances
and
area
variances,
have
the
authority
to
impose
such
reasonable
conditions
and
restrictions,
as
are
directly
related
to
and
incidental
to,
the
proposed
use
of
the
property.
A
Such
conditions
shall
be
consistent
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
zoning,
ordinance
or
local
law
and
shall
be
imposed
for
the
purpose
of
minimizing
any
adverse
impact.
Such
variants
may
have
on
the
neighborhood
or
community.
In
this
case
the
Court
held
that
petitioners
were
in
fact
in
effect,
objecting
to
the
1993
decision
of
the
zba.
A
A
B
A
Now
I
think
this
is
my
last
I
have
one
more
case:
Deputy
chair.
Can
we
go
through
it
sure?
Okay?
This
was
the
whole
reason.
I
went
through
a
statue
of
limitations.
Training
was
because
I
came
across
this
case.
That
I
was
super
intrigued
by
now.
It's
taken
so
long
to
get
to
I
think
I'm
less
intrigued,
but
maybe
we
can
maybe
we
can
pull
it
together.
A
So
in
this
case
this
was
recent.
This
is
a
covid
case
about
some
pandemic
rules
that
we'll
we'll
talk
about.
You
know
it
deals
with
the
issue
of
the
pandemic
and
virtual
meetings.
So
I
I
was
that's
what
kind
of
sparked
my
interest
in
this
case
petitioner,
commenced
in
article
78,
proceeding
seeking
a
judgment
annulling
a
determination
of
the
village
planning
board,
denying
petitioners
application
for
site
plan
approval,
so
it's
not
even
about
the
zba,
but
the
issues
the
same
dealing
with
virtual
meetings.
A
In
this
case,
the
village
planning
board
moved
to
dismiss
the
petition.
The
planning
board
meeting
of
April
12
2021,
was
held
virtually
via
Zoom.
Petitioners.
Council
contacted
the
office
of
the
village
clerk
the
next
day
by
email
and
telephone,
seeking
formal
notice
of
decision
of
the
planning
board's
denial
of
the
site
plan
application
and
was
advised
that
the
village
clerk
was
out
of
the
office
and
would
provide
a
written
notice
of
the
decision
upon
his
return.
A
The
attorney
continued
to
request
a
written
decision
by
engaging
in
email
exchanges
on
April,
15th
and
April
16th
with
the
village
clerk
who
consistently
indicated
that
he
did
not
have
the
written
notice
of
decision
eventually,
the
The
Village
clerk
provided
petitioners
counsel.
With
the
letter
dated
April
19th,
which
stated
it
was
the
official
notification
that
the
site
plan
application
had
been
denied.
A
A
So
does
the
FI
the
question
that
was
ultimately
presented
was:
does
the
filing
of
a
zoom
recording
of
a
planning
board
meeting
commence
the
30-day
statute
of
limitations?
And
this
is
something
that
we
do?
We
we
record,
we
recorded
our
Zoom
meetings
and
you
post
them
online
and
you
know
they're
served
they're
saved
on
on
our
YouTube
page.
A
Although
minutes
of
the
meeting
were
later
prepared
and
filed
in
The
Village's
office,
respondents
contend
that
the
village
recording
of
the
planning
board
meeting
constitutes
the
decision
of
the
planning
board,
because
it
contains
the
resolution
and
the
votes
of
the
planning
board
members
and
further
because
it
was
filed
in
the
village
clerk's
office
as
a
village
record
upon
conclusion
of
the
meeting
when
it
was
automatically
stored
in
the
cloud.
Accordingly,
respondents
contend
that
this
proceeding
was
commenced.
35
days
after
the
recording
was
saved.
A
The
petitioner
further
argued
that
the
planning
board
would
be
a
stop
from
raising
the
statute
of
limitations.
Defense,
noting
that
its
Council
repeatedly
contacted
The,
Village's,
cler
The
Village
clerk's
office
in
the
immediate
aftermath
of
the
meeting
to
obtain
formal
evidence
of
the
decision,
specifically
for
the
purpose
of
ascertaining
the
appropriate
limitations
period
for
commencing
the
article
78.
Yet
was
never
advised
by
The
Village
clerk
that
the
respondents
considered
the
digital
recording
to
be
the
decision
of
the
planning
board.
A
So
we
all
know
I'm,
just
gonna
summarize
our
rule
one
more
time.
Last
time.
We
all
know
that
the
preceding
brought
pursuance
to
an
article
78
is
challenge
and
to
challenge
the
decision
of
of
a
planning
board
or
a
zoning
board
regarding,
in
this
case,
the
site
plan.
But
in
our
case,
variances
must
be
instituted
within
30
days
after
the
filing
of
a
decision
by
such
board
in
the
office
of
the
village
Clerk
or
the
city
clerk,
no
particular
form
of
decision
is
mandated
by
Statute.
A
If
the
meetings,
if
the
minutes
incorporate
the
decision,
the
respondents
persuasively
argued
that
the
record
recording
of
a
planning
board
meeting
conducted
via
video
conferencing
could
satisfy
the
requirements
of
a
decision
of
the
planning
board,
because
it
contains
the
resolution
that
was
acted
upon
and
Records.
Each
member's
vote
responding
to
further
assert
that
the
statute
does
not
specify
that
a
decision
must
be
in
writing
further.
The
electronic
signatures
and
Records
act
specifically
authorizes
government
entities
to
produce
file
and
store
records
electronically,
provided
that
certain
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements
are
met.
A
It
thus
stands
to
reason
that
the
video
recording
of
the
planning
board,
if
properly
filed
with
the
appropriate
officer,
could
constitute
the
decision
of
the
planning
board
pursuant
to
Village
Law
I
mean
that
was
like
I
was
reading
that
that's
a
lot
like.
We
constantly
record
our
me
our
meetings.
You
know
this
is
adding
another
layer
to
this
statute
limitations
element,
but
the
court
added
a
however
and
said
that
the
statute
of
limitations
did
not
begin
to
run
until
the
decision
was
filed
with
the
village
Clerk.
A
Three
that
the
board's
assertion
that
the
30-day
statute
limitations
began
to
run.
The
conclusion
of
its
meeting
presented
an
unusual
factual
situation,
supporting
application
of
estoppel
against
a
government
agency
and
four
the
board
was
a
stop
from
asserting
statute
limitations.
Defense
against
the
petitioner.
A
They
also
added
an
argument
that,
in
this
case,
the
the
planning
board
did
not
deny
the
potential.
They
did
not
deny
that
the
petitioners
Council
made
several
attempts
to
obtain
written
notice
of
the
planning
board's
decision
from
the
village
clerk
immediately
following
the
meeting,
but
was
never
advised
that
respondents
considered
the
video
recording
already
uploaded
to
the
cloud
to
be
the
planning
board's
decision.
A
It
should
have
been
apparent
to
respondents
that
the
purpose
of
the
persistent
inquiries
made
by
the
petitioner's
council
was
to
have
a
decision
in
hand
for
the
basis
of
commencing
in
article
78,
proceeding
and
further
to
ascertain
when
the
statute
of
limitations
would
begin
to
run.
Nonetheless,
the
the
we're
now
I'm,
forgetting
from
the
village
The
Village.
A
Nonetheless,
The
Village,
failed
to
advise
petitioners
Council
of
their
novel
legal
position
that
they
considered
the
recording
of
the
April
12
2021
meeting
to
be
the
planning
board's
decision.
Therefore,
the
village
was
estopped
from
from
asserting
a
statute
of
limitations.
Defense
based
upon
the
argument
that
the
statute
of
limitations
began
to
run
right
after
the
meeting.
This
is
the
only
case
where
I've
seen
it
actually
estoppel
granted
against
the
municipality.
I
thought
this
was
really
interesting
and
there's
not
a
lot
of
cases
yet
that
contemplate
the
impact
of
virtual
meetings.
A
A
So
if
you
are
going
to
file
your
Zoom
meetings
in
such
a
way
that
could
start
the
statute
of
limitations
has
something
to
be
aware
of,
but
you'd
have
to
get
permission
to
do
that
or
you'd
have
to
serve
them.
You'd
have
to
save
them
in
a
municipal,
owned
location,
so
I
thought
that
was
interesting.
A
Hopefully,
that
didn't
put
you
guys
to
sleep
too
much
I'm
sorry,
I
went
I
went
over
in
my
training
session,
but
you
know
I'm
just
fascinated
by
the
impact
of
virtual
what
virtual
meetings
had
on
open
meeting
procedures
and
are
still
having
so
stay
tuned,
I
think
maybe
the
next
training
will
be
on
conditions.
How
are
we
feeling
maybe
a
refresher
on
some
valid
conditions?