Gulino Construction Corp. v. Hilleboe

8 Misc. 2d 853, 167 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1917
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedApril 25, 1956
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 8 Misc. 2d 853 (Gulino Construction Corp. v. Hilleboe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gulino Construction Corp. v. Hilleboe, 8 Misc. 2d 853, 167 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1917 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1956).

Opinion

Cabl W. Petebson, J.

The petitioner Gulino Construction Corporation brings this proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act for an order directing Dr. Herman E. Hilleboe, Commissioner of the Department of Health of the State of New York, to file and approve a map of section 2 of Oak Ledge Manor in the town of Camillus, State of New York.

It appears that the petitioner acquired certain real property consisting of about 83 acres of land situate in the town of Camillus in May, 1955 and that this property was purchased for the sole purpose of subdividing the same into tracts and erecting homes thereon.

After acquiring the property the petitioner created a tract known as section 1 of Oak Ledge Manor consisting of approximately 36 lots upon which a number of houses have been built and equipped with individual sewage disposal facilities.

Subsequently a map of section 2 was prepared by licensed land surveyors with the approval of the supervisor of the Town of Camillus, and a copy of the map was submitted to the New York State Health Department for approval. The New York State Department of Health has refused to approve same, pending (1) formation of the Nine Mile Creek Sanitary District and (2) formation of a town collecting sewer district to serve Oak Ledge Manor.

Petitioner has filed with the Town Board of the Town of Camillus a petition for the establishment of the Oak Ledge Sewer District for the premises described in section 2, but the establishment of such a sewer district has as yet not materialized.

It further appears that the Onondaga Public Works Commission of Onondaga County has requested consulting engineers to make a study and report as to the Nine Mile Creek Sanitary District. Petitioner further states in its petition:

“ 10. All of the homes erected in Section 1 of Oak Ledge Manor are equipped with individual sewage disposal facilities which are functioning properly, and. in addition thereto, a sewer pipe has been constructed with each home extending 35 feet to the street line so that the use of the individual sewage disposal can be easily discontinued whenever public sewer facilities are available and the individual sewer connections to public sewage system are ready for attachment. Your petitioner was informed that at that time it was only [855]*855necessary for the builder to construct such a house sewer to a point beyond 5 feet of the cellar wall or foundation to be available for future use.

‘111. As appears in the proposed map of Section 2 of Oak Ledge Manor the same house sewer will be constructed for each house thereon extending the distance of 35 feet from the cellar wall or foundation to the street line.

“ 12. Tour petitioner is willing to construct any of the required sewage facilities within the proposed section 2 of the Oak Ledge Manor.”

The respondent admits that the homes erected in section 1 are equipped with individual sewage disposal facilities, the plan being earlier approved by the State Health Department, but contends that similar sewage facilities for section 2 are inadequate and unsatisfactory in view of all conditions.

As a defense to this proceeding with respect to section 2, however, respondent states that it has issued a Statement of Policy for Realty Subdivisions in Onondaga County to the builders participating in such projects, a copy of which is before the court. It contends that building in the town of Camillus has developed more rapidly during the past five years than in any of the towns in the metropolitan Syracuse area, that the population of the town of Camillus has doubled in the last years and that the approval of s'eptic tanks without adequate planning and construction of public sewers will impose a hardship on the purchasers of these homes and lead to unsanitary conditions; that the area in question extends to about 100 lots and that septic tanks and leaching units are temporary at best; that the map submitted by the petitioners shows septic tank installations and house service sewers but does not designate any public sewer system to serve the area; that the leaching units connected to each septic tank can be very dangerous to health of children because of the danger of overflowing; and that there is no concrete evidence of any formation of the Nine Mile Creek Sanitary District nor any actual indication of the town creating a sewer district to serve Oak Ledge Manor.

Section 1116 of the Public Health Law provides as follows:

1 ‘ Realty subdivisions; plans required to be filed and approved.
1. No subdivision or portion thereof shall be sold, offered for sale, leased or rented by any corporation, company or person, and no permanent building shall be erected thereon, until a plan of such subdivision shall be filed with and approved by the department.
[856]*8561 ‘ 2. Such plan shall show methods for obtaining and furnishing adequate and satisfactory water supply and sewerage facilities to said subdivision.
“ 3. The installation of such facilities shall be in accordance with the plans or any revision or revisions thereof approved by the department.”

It is obvious that these proposed houses cannot be erected until the map or plan, of the subdivision shall be approved by the department and until the plans show adequate and satisfactory sewerage facilities, and that this installation must be in accordance with the plans approved by the Department of Health.

The question then is whether the plan submitted by petitioner shows methods for obtaining and furnishing adequate and satisfactory sewerage facilities. The State Department of Health claims that it does not.

It seems apparent under section 1116 of the Public Health Law that it is for the State Department of Health to determine whether or not the submitted plans show adequate and satisfactory sewerage facilities, and its judgment thereon should not be disturbed, excepting where its action is arbitrary, tyrannical or unreasonable. (People ex rel. Agins & Klugerman, Inc., v. Board of Health of City of N. Y., 197 App. Div. 562, 564; People ex rel. Lodes v. Department of Health of City of N. I., 189 N. Y. 187.)

Petitioner claims that the proposed homes or buildings will comply with all sanitary regulations and that the department may not in its discretion refuse approval. The respondent contends that the petition herein on its face fails to state facts sufficient to grant the relief asked for.

It must be conceded that the Department of Health of the State of New York' is charged with duties of the highest importance, to wit: to protect the public health. In its capacity of protection of the public health, it has enunciated a policy (Statement of Policy for Realty Subdivisions in Onondaga County, dated June 15, 1955) relative to realty subdivisions in Onondaga County, which in part reads:

“ 1. Each subdivision or section of a subdivision will be considered upon its merits as a separate and independent problem. The policies of the Department will apply to all subdivisions in a general way but may be modified as required to provide the most satisfactory and economical arrangements possible for sanitary facilities in any particular local situation or under any special conditions. The final decision will depend [857]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Delaware Midland Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Westhampton Beach
79 Misc. 2d 438 (New York Supreme Court, 1974)
Incorporated Village of Nissequogue v. Meixsell
55 Misc. 2d 1069 (New York Supreme Court, 1968)
Cypress Estates, Inc. v. Moore
51 Misc. 2d 463 (New York Supreme Court, 1966)
Leone v. Paris
43 Misc. 2d 442 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
Medine v. Burns
29 Misc. 2d 890 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Misc. 2d 853, 167 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulino-construction-corp-v-hilleboe-nysupct-1956.