Features

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.”

Columns & Departments

Building Administrator Had No Authority to Make Site Plan Determinations

Features

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."

Features

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.

Features

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?

Features

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.

Features

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.

Features

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 <i>Matter of New Creek Bluebelt, Phase 3 (Baycrest Manor Inc.)</i>, provides some guidance on three important regulatory takings issues.