## Facts

- The Town of Waterloo enacted a mining law (Town Code Chapter 80) that, among other restrictions, prohibited mining within 1,000 feet of certain uses, including residences.
- Seneca Meadows, Inc. (SMI) operated a landfill and related facilities in the Town and sought to conduct clay mining activities.
- In 2005, the Town and SMI executed a written Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) providing community benefits in connection with SMI’s operations; petitioners claimed the CBA bound SMI to comply with all local laws and zoning ordinances, including Chapter 80’s setback.
- In 2014, the Town Board issued SMI a mining permit, and the Planning Board approved a site plan and special-use permit for clay mining in an agricultural zoning district.
- Petitioners (local residents and a citizens group) brought a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action to annul the approvals, alleging the boards acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to enforce the 1,000-foot setback and by failing to comply with the CBA.
- Respondents moved to dismiss the claims premised on the CBA and the Chapter 80 setback for failure to state a cause of action.

## Issues

1. Whether petitioners stated an article 78 claim that the Town Board and Planning Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously, abused their discretion, or erred as a matter of law by approving mining allegedly inconsistent with Chapter 80’s 1,000-foot setback based on the CBA.
2. Whether petitioners could obtain relief in an article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding on the theory that the CBA contractually subjected SMI to Chapter 80’s setback and allowed petitioners to enforce that obligation.

## Decision

- The court granted dismissal of the causes of action based on the CBA and the 1,000-foot setback requirement.
- The court held that the petition did not plead a legally cognizable basis to treat the approvals as arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful due to an alleged CBA-based obligation to apply Chapter 80’s setback.
- The court concluded the CBA did not provide petitioners enforceable rights (as asserted third-party beneficiaries) to compel compliance with the setback through this proceeding.
- The court found the setback-based allegations too conclusory and insufficient to show a clear, applicable legal prohibition that the boards violated or failed to apply as a mandatory duty.

## Legal Principles

- Article 78 review is limited; a petitioner must plead facts showing the challenged determination was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or affected by an error of law.
- A contract between a municipality and a private party generally does not create enforceable rights for nonparties absent clear contractual intent to confer third-party beneficiary enforcement rights.
- Article 78 is not a general mechanism to litigate alleged breaches of municipal-private agreements by private parties; relief ordinarily requires identification of a specific legal duty governing the governmental determination.
- The applicability and operation of a local law are questions of law; a private agreement does not, by itself, establish a statutory violation or supply a substitute for pleading an actual conflict with operative legal requirements.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the petitioners’ CBA- and setback-based claims because the pleadings did not establish that the town boards’ mining approvals violated a clearly applicable legal mandate or that petitioners had enforceable rights under the CBA to compel application of Chapter 80’s setback through an article 78/declaratory judgment action.


Lemmon v. Seneca Meadows, Inc., 46 Misc. 3d 1215(A), 9 N.Y.S.3d 593 (Sup. Ct. Seneca Cnty. 2015)