
    CITIZENS ACCORD, INC., Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellant, v. TOWN OF ROCHESTER, NEW YORK; Town Board of the Town of Rochester; Planning Board of the Town of Rochester; Robert Baker, individually and in his capacity as Supervisor; Douglas Dymond, individually and in his capacity as Code Enforcement Officer; William Carroll, individually and in his capacity as Town Board Member; Harold Lipton, individually and in his capacity as Town Board Member; Ronald Santosky, individually and in his capacity as Town Board Member; Carl Edwards, individually and in his capacity as Town Board Member; Richard Gray, individually and in his capacity as Town Board Member; Leon Smith, individually and in his capacity as Town Board Member; Jamie Beardsley, individually and in his capacity as Planning Board Member; Shane Ricks, individually and in his capacity as Planning Board Member; William Degraw, individually and in his capacity as Planning Board Member; Brian Drabkin, individually and in his capacity as Planning Board Member; Richard Bolter, individually and in his capacity as Planning Board Member; Melvyn Tapper, individually and in his capacity as Planning Board Member, Defendants-Appellees, Susanne SAHLER, individually and in her capacity as Planning Board Member, Defendant, TWIN TRACK PROMOTIONS, INC., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee.
    Docket No. 01-7643.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 6, 2002.
    
      Gary T. Kelder, Kelder, Kane & Associates, Manlius, NY, for Appellant.
    Terry Rice, Rice & Amon, Suffern, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Kenneth J. McGuire Jr., Troy, NY, for Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee.
    Present KEARSE, JACOBS, and KEITH , Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Honorable Damon J. Keith, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and was argued by counsel.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge McAvo/s Memorandum-Decision & Order dated April 18, 2000.

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.  