INDEX NO. EF2020-00001505 NYSCEF DOC. NO. SL EIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2021 Ata term of Supreme Court held in and for the County of Jefferson, in the City of Watertown, New York on the 28" day of January, 2021 PRESENT: HONORABLE JAMES P. McCLUSKY Supreme Court Justice ISTATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF JEFFERSON PRIME, L.L.C., CLIFFORD G. OLNEY, Ill, MEMORAN' DECISION AND Petitioners, ORDER “vs. IMAYOR JEFFREY SMITH, WATERTOWN Index No. EF2020-1805 CITY COUNCIL, WATERTOWN GOLF CLUB UcHEINe. 20-81 Respondents. Respondents (City) moved to dismiss the verified petition and to declare that City| lof Watertown Ordinance #1 of August 3, 2020 was a valid exercise of legislative authority, [Petitioner crossed moved for a judgment vacating and setting aside determinations of the| (City dated April 6, 2020 and August 3, 2020. The matter was previously converted to a declaratory judgment by this Court. ‘The Court has considered all documents filed electronically in the New York State| {Courts Electronic Filing system under Index Number EF2020-00001505. The motion of the City is denied, The cross motion of the Petitioner is denied, Petitioner seeks to annul the determination of the City in designating a certain parcel f land (previously thought to be owned by the Watertown Golf Club (WGC) and which the| GC previously gravelled and utilized as a parking lot) a designated parking lot. 1 of 2INDEX NO. EF2020-00001505 NYSCEF Doc. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2021 Petitioner argues that a public hearing was required and point to the City Council's wn words to that effect. However, at the time that statement was made the City Council }was talking about a designated parking lot, which would require a public hearing, not what| hey ultimately approved, where no municipal structures or facilities were constructed, The City originally considered building a paved parking lot with all the necessary infrastructure for drainage etc. The City reconsidered this position and instead decided to| leave the property as is and designate it as an area that visitors to Thompson Park could] tlize for parking. Petitioner does not point to a City Ordinance or rule that would not allow| his action and or require a public hearing. It is significant to note that while there is one designated parking lot in Thompson Park, there are numerous designated parking areas| located throughout the park. Courts may not substitute their judgment or preference in a challenge to a validly| lenacted law. To the extent that the Petitioner believes that an Article 78 action is stil viable as the| [City failed to follow proper procedures in that SEQR was not complied with the Court finds| hat a full SEQR reviews not necessary and the EAF short form was properly considered. It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion to dismiss the petition is denied; and| it is further ORDERED that the cross motion to annul City of Watertown Ordinance #1 of| August 3, 2020 is denied; and it is further DECLARED that City of Watertown OrdipGnte #1 of August 3, 2020 was a valid ppxercise of legisiative authority, Dated: February 2 , 2021 Watertown, New York ENTER 2 of 2