As land-use cases increasingly find themselves in federal court, 61 East Main Street stands as a pivotal reminder to litigants that frustration with municipal delay is no substitute for finality. The decision echoes the clear stance taken by the Second Circuit: district courts will not serve as zoning boards of appeal for restless developers.
In Peconic Land Trust, Inc. v Salvatore, the Second Department affirmed the Motion Court’s grant of summary judgment upholding the notice provisions in a conservation easement and held that the landowner’s failure to notify the land trust before they cut down trees that were protected by that conservation easement was a material violation of the easement. The Second Department affirmed Justice Pastoressa’s decision and held that the land trust was entitled to judgment “compelling the restoration of the [protected] property to the condition that existed prior to such violation.”
Building Administrator Had No Authority to Make Site Plan Determinations
The New York Court of Appeals' recent decision in Peyton v. BSA held, in the context of a zoning lot containing several residential buildings, that the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York does not require an area to be accessible to all residents of the zoning lot for the area to qualify as "open space."
Part Two In a Series In this part of the series on "zoning" bonuses in the city of Philadelphia, we explore Floor Area Bonuses provided under the Mixed Incoming Housing, Green Building, and Underground Accessory Parking & Loading Bonuses.
Does a local law requiring site plan review satisfy the statutory requirement when a town (or village) has enacted neither a formal comprehensive plan for a zoning ordinance?
The culturally conscious property owner may be interested in commissioning an artist to beautify the outdoor wall of the owner's warehouse space. However, it's important to understand the legal effect of commissioning such work and the scope of rights that the property owner acquires and surrenders as a result.
The New York Court of Appeals has long established that an agency's assessment of environmental impacts pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQRA, is entitled to substantial deference, admonishing lower courts that it is not their role to substitute their judgment for the judgment of agencies undertaking the action. Sometimes, however, lower courts give lip service to the deferential standard of review but fail to apply it.
Determining whether or not a government regulation constitutes a “taking” for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment can be a complex endeavor. The recent Second Department decision of Matter of New Creek Bluebelt, Phase 3 (Baycrest Manor Inc.), provides some guidance on three important regulatory takings issues.
