Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Urbanization & Agriculture

Court Invalidates Agency Determination Requiring Building Permit
for Agricultural Use Structures

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency, 868 N.Y.S.2d 481, 2008 WL 4949172 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008), the New York Supreme Court of Essex County held that single-family dwellings constructed to house agricultural workers were within the meaning of "agricultural use structures" and thus the owner was not required to obtain a permit under the Adirondack Park Agency Act for their construction.

Background

Lewis Family Farm, Inc., which owned and operated an eleven-hundred acre organic farm located within the Adirondack Park, had begun construction of three homes to be used by its employees on a portion of its property classified as resource management. Id. at 484. The cluster of dwellings was located approximately 800 feet from the Bouquet River, a designated recreational river under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act. Id. at 484-85. Lewis had submitted an application to the Adirondack Park Agency seeking a permit to construct the dwellings, but the Agency denied the application, and over the next several months the parties engaged in unsuccessful negotiations until the Agency issued a cease and desist order. Id. at 485. After an unsuccessful challenge to the Agency's jurisdiction, Lewis continued construction and the Agency initiated an enforcement action for violation of the order. Id. The Agency's enforcement committee determined that Lewis had violated the Adirondack Park Agency Act (APA Act) by failing to obtain a subdivision permit and a permit authorizing construction of two of the dwelling units, because the Act's definition of "agricultural use structures" was only intended to include other structures of an accessory nature and did not include farm workers' dwellings, and it ordered Lewis to apply for a permit for three new single-family dwellings and a four-lot subdivision, pay a $50,000 civil penalty, and not to occupy the dwellings until a permit was issued. Id. at 486. Lewis brought a CPLR Article 78 proceeding and the court granted a stay as to enforcement of the Agency's determination except for the prohibition against occupying the dwellings and payment of the civil penalty. Id. The Agency also commenced an enforcement action, the two cases were consolidated, and both parties moved for summary judgment. Id.

Arguments

The Agency argued that single family dwellings and agricultural use structures were treated as separate and distinct uses under the APA Act, so the two terms were mutually exclusive. Id. at 493.

Analysis and Holdings

The APA Act states that any person proposing to undertake a regional project within the Park must "make application to the agency for approval of such project and receive an agency permit therefor prior to undertaking the project." Id. at 488. A "single family dwelling" in a resource management area requires a permit from the Agency as a class B regional project. Id. at 489. However, "agricultural use structures" in resource management areas do not require a permit from the Agency. Id. Executive law defines an "agricultural use structure" as "any barn, stable, shed, silo, garage, fruit and vegetable stand or other building or structure directly and customarily associated with agricultural use," and separately defines "structure" to include single-family dwellings. Id. at 488. The issue before the court was whether the three single family dwellings serving as farm worker housing constituted "agricultural use structures." Id. at 489. The court noted that no deference is accorded to an agency's determination where a court "is faced with the interpretation of statutes and pure questions of law," and further noted that there was nothing in the APA Act that precluded a "single family dwelling" "directly and customarily associated with agricultural use" from qualifying as an "agricultural use structure." Id. at 493. In interpreting the APA Act, the court concluded that the dwellings were included under the meaning of "agricultural use structures." Id. at 494. The court therefore annulled the Agency's determination on the ground that it was affected by an error of law, and granted summary judgment dismissing the Agency's complaint. Id.

The case was decided on November 19, 2008.