The New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (“Uniform Code”) sets forth uniform building and fire prevention standards for New York State.  Article 18 of the NYS Executive Law requires municipalities within the State to administer and enforce the Uniform Code within their boundaries. Executive Law §379(3) states, “…no municipality shall have the power to supersede, void, repeal or make more or less restrictive any provisions of this article or of rules or regulations made pursuant to [the Uniform Code].”

However, a municipality may adopt more stringent local standards provided it petitions the NYS Code Council for a determination of whether such local laws or ordinances are reasonably necessary because of special conditions prevailing within the local government and that such standards conform with accepted engineering and fire prevention practices and the purposes of the Uniform Code. Executive Law §383. The adoption of more stringent laws that have successfully petitioned the NYS Code Council are available at https://www.dos.ny.gov/dcea/mrls.html (the majority of which relate to sprinklers or fire prevention codes).

Whether a particular local law or regulation is superseded depends upon whether it is inconsistent or in conflict with provisions of the Uniform Code. Local laws enacted pursuant to other municipal powers for example, under zoning or wetlands protection, are recognized as legitimate areas for government regulation and may also regulate the construction and use of buildings in municipalities.

Not so subtle conflicts between zoning laws and the uniform code exist in many municipalities requiring that these laws be considered and applied together. For the most part, courts reject arguments claiming local laws are preempted by the Uniform Code or invalid based upon a failure of the municipality to appeal the local law to the NYS Code Council. Brockport Sweden Property Owners Ass’n v. Village of Brockport, 81 A.D.3d 1416, 917 N.Y.S.2d 481 (4th Dept. 2011)(rejecting that local law was preempted by Uniform Code); Catskill Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. v. Village of Suffern, 65 A.D.3d 1340, 886 N.Y.S.2d 214 (2d Dept. 2009)(finding OTB failed to establish that Village Code improperly superseded the Uniform Code); People v. Robles, 22 Misc.3d 140 (A), 881 N.Y.S.2d 366 (Sup.Ct. App. Term 2009)(rejecting claim that Uniform Code preempted the City of Glen Cove code on the merits, finding an expressed interest in statewide uniformity rather than an implied statement of preemption); People v. Oceanside Institutional Industries, Inc., 15 Misc. 3d 22, 833 N.Y.S.2d 350 (Sup. Ct. App Term 2007)(finding that Uniform Code and Nassau County Fire Prevention Ordinance can coexist and applying more stringent sections of codes in conflict).

With the advent of Airbnb and like services, short term rental regulation has become a hot topic on the East End. A review of the occupancy standards in local rental codes and the Uniform Code for single family residences provides a noteworthy example of the local municipality/state regulation inconsistency.

Municipalities use the definition of “family” to limit the number of occupants permitted in single family residences and thereby control the use of homes in residential zoning districts. On the East End, Southampton and East Hampton Towns have used the definition of family to limit the number of persons occupying a rental property under their rental codes. See Southampton Town Code Chapter 270 and East Hampton Town Code Chapter 199  limiting the definition of family to include five or less unrelated persons living together (Southampton) or four or less living together as a single housekeeping unit (East Hampton).   Alternatively, both codes allow an unlimited number of persons that are related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption to reside together provided they live as a single housekeeping unit.

In addition to Town regulations addressing and limiting single family residence occupancy, the New York State Property Maintenance Code regulates occupancy by limiting the number of occupants per square foot per bedroom. Specifically, Property Maintenance Code §404.4.1 requires that “every bedroom occupied by one person shall contain at least 70 square feet of floor area, and every bedroom occupied by more than one person shall contain at least 50 square feet of floor area for each occupant thereof.”

The Property Maintenance Code does not define family but only references occupant which is defined as “an individual living or sleeping in a building.” Therefore, even if the group of persons renting a home in Southampton or East Hampton qualify as family and are not limited under the rental code definitions, compliance with the Property Maintenance Code is still required (notably, East Hampton and Southampton eventually codified the same restrictions). This section of the property maintenance code specifically addresses overcrowding issues. To that end, the Property Maintenance Code also prevents a bedroom from being used as the only means of access or egress to another bedroom; each bedroom must have access to a bathroom without passing through another bedroom; and bedrooms must comply with the requirements for light, ventilation, room area, ceiling height, room widths etc.

Other examples of perceived conflicts include occupancy standards set forth for commercial structures and restaurants in the County Health Department Codes, Uniform Code and local laws; third stories or mezzanine laws and restrictions; standards for bedrooms in basements; and new energy codes including LEED, Energy Star or other ratings systems embraced in local laws that could require higher standards than the Uniform Code. Upon adoption of such local laws, petitions to the NYS Code Council for approval are recommended. See 3 N.Y. Zoning Law and Practice §32A:35, State Preemption of Local Laws, Patricia E. Salkin, November 2016 update.

Ultimately, the Uniform Code and local municipal codes must be read and applied together to ensure compliance.

On June 28, 2017, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that a tenant has standing to challenge the definition of “Family” as set forth in the Freeport Village Code.

In Tomasulo v. Village of Freeport, ___A.D.3d___, the Village commenced a criminal proceeding against non-party property owner, William Goodhue, Jr. (owner), alleging that the tenancy between Tomasulo (tenant) and the owner violated sections 171-1 and 210-3 of the Freeport Village Code. The tenant had resided in a single family home with the owner of the home and two other non-related persons. This arrangement violated the definition of “Family” in the Village Code. As a result of the criminal proceeding, the owner commenced an eviction proceeding against Tomasulo.

In response to the eviction proceeding, Tomasulo commenced an Article 78 proceeding against the Village challenging the constitutionality of the definition of “Family” contained in Village Code sections 171-1 and 210-3.  The trial court converted the Article 78 proceeding to a complaint and granted the Village’s motion for summary judgment holding that Tomasulo lacked standing to seek a declaration as to the “constitutionality of the disputed portions of the Village Code” because Tomasulo had “not been injured or threatened with injury as a result of those provisions . . . and [Tomasulo] failed to adequately allege the existence of a justiciable controversy.”

In reversing the trial court, the Second Department stated that Tomasulo “demonstrated a ‘threatened injury to [his] protected right’ to his tenancy in the owner’s house . . . such that he has adequately shown ‘an interest sufficient to constitute standing to maintain the action.'”

Finding that Tomasulo’s pending eviction proceeding demonstrated a “present, rather than hypothetical, contingent or remote, prejudice to [him] . . . [the Court declared that the] Village did not establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.”

 

two housesOn April 5, 2017, in an Article 78 proceeding, Tavano v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Patterson, 2017 NY Slip Op 02661, the Second Department reversed a trial court decision and reinstated a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Patterson.  The zoning board had granted petitioner Tavano’s application to establish a legal non-conforming use of a second building on his property, referred to as the “cottage.”

Tavano argued that the cottage located at his property was a leased residential dwelling and that its use preexisted the Town’s 1942 zoning ordinance, which provided that “a building, structure, or premises could be used as a rooming or boarding house so long as there were no more than three boarders or roomers.”  Id.

In reversing the trial court’s finding, the Appellate Division noted that petitioner owned property in Brewster that is improved with a single family dwelling constructed in 1947 and a cottage constructed in 1955.  Tavano lived in the single family dwelling and rented the cottage.

Although the Appellate Division did not affirmatively state that its decision rested on the fact that the cottage was constructed in 1955, well after the 1942 zoning ordinance was enacted, and thus, Tavano could not establish entitlement to a legal nonconforming use, the Court did state that “to establish a legal nonconforming use, a property owner must demonstrate that the allegedly preexisting use was legal prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance that purportedly rendered it nonconforming.”

Here, and without benefit of the trial court opinion, it appears that the relevant question was not only whether the cottage was constructed prior to enactment of the 1942 ordinance, but also whether Tavano’s use of the cottage constituted use as a rooming or boarding house.

In reinstating the zoning  board’s decision, the Appellate Division relied upon the long-standing legal principle that ‘[t]he determination of a zoning board regarding the continuation of a preexisting nonconfirming use must be sustained if it is rational and supported by substantial evidence, even if the reviewing court would have reached a different result”

Consequently, and as all land use lawyers will attest, even if the trial court or reviewing court would have reached a different result than that zoning board, deference is to be afforded to the zoning board.  Finding that the “ZBA’s determination that the cottage did not constitute a rooming or boarding house under the 1942 zoning ordinance was not arbitrary or capricious”, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court and reinstated the zoning board’s decision.

office spaceOn February 20, 2017, our colleagues blogged about Ader v. Guzman, 135 AD3d 668 [2d Dept. 2016] and a guidance letter subsequently issued by the NYS Department of State (NYSDOS). At issue was the responsibility of a real estate broker to have a working knowledge of the property being marketed, including land use and zoning restrictions. The Court held that a broker has no duty to investigate whether there is a valid rental permit for the residential rental property. The NYSDOS, which licenses real estate brokers and salespersons in New York, reached a different conclusion, noting that the failure of a broker to have a working knowledge of the site could violate the broker’s obligations under the Real Property Law §§ 441 and 441-c.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, we presented a program to the Commercial Industrial Broker Society of Long Island (CIBS) about Land Use and Environmental Pitfalls for Real Estate Agents and Brokers that dealt with the Ader/NYSDOS issue. We also discussed NYS’s Tenant Notification Law and other potential environmental and land use traps that could adversely impact realtors.  Please click here for a copy of our power point presentation.  We hope you enjoy it!

Municipalities on Long Island are struggling to control rental properties. In Southampton, rental properties are governed by Chapter 270 of the Southampton Town Code (the “Code”). Section 270-3 of the Code establishes that an owner of a residential property shall not permit or allow its use or occupancy as a rental without first obtaining a permit. If an owner does rent without a permit, section 270-13(a) of the Code prohibits the owner’s collection of rent.

In Schwartz v. Torrenzano, 49 Misc.3d 943, 16 N.Y.S.3d 697, (Suffolk Co. 2015), the Supreme Court held that Southampton’s rental permit law creates a private cause of action allowing, in certain circumstances, a tenant to recoup rent paid to its landlord. The trial court’s holding in Schwartz was recently cited with approval by the Appellate Division, Second Department in Ader v. Guzman, 135 A.D.3d 671, 23 N.Y.S.3d 292 (2d Dept. 2016).

In Ader, tenants demanded the return of their rent after discovering that their summer rental lacked a permit. The Appellate Division, relying in part upon Schwartz, affirmed the Supreme Court’s holding that the Code affords tenants an implied private right of action and that the Ader lease was unenforceable. The Appellate Division held that because Southampton’s rental permit law is intended to protect the public health and prevent fraud, enforcing the illegal lease and permitting the landlord to keep the tenants’ rent violates public policy.

In a companion case, Ader v. Guzman & Corcoran Realty Group, LLC, et al., 135 A.D.3d 668, 22 N.Y.S.3d 576 (2d Dept. 2016), the Appellate Division held that Real Property Law §443(4)(b) does not impose a duty upon real estate brokers to investigate whether a rental property is properly permitted. Despite the Court’s holding, the New York State Department of State, in a guidance letter dated April 19, 2016, cautioned that “notwithstanding the decision in Guzman, a broker who fails to demonstrate a working knowledge of the property being marketed, fails to demonstrate the level of competency required to transact business as a licensee in violation of Real Property Law §§441 and 441-c.” The Department further warned that a broker’s commission “premised upon an unlawful agreement is ‘unearned’ in violation of Real Property Law §441-c.”

It is clear that from the Department’s perspective that brokers must make reasonable efforts to verify the legal status of the properties they offer and that, where a broker has actual knowledge that a property lacks a permit or is otherwise illegal, such information must be affirmatively disclosed.