Last month, the Appellate Division, Second Department, issued two interesting opinions concerning parking. One involved a parking variance and the other involved a restrictive covenant.

Here are the details!

No Parking

In Bonefish Grill, LLC v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Rockville Centre, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 006643 [2d Dept September 27, 2017], a restaurant leased property at 340 Sunrise Highway. It was going to demolish an existing structure and replace it with a 5,400 square foot restaurant. The Village Zoning Code required 54 off-street parking spaces for the proposed restaurant. It had none.

The same landlord owned the adjoining property, 330 Sunrise Highway. The restaurant tenant proposed a merger of the two lots in order to take advantage of an exception in the Village Zoning Code that essentially allowed a municipal lot to substitute for the off-street parking for “interior restaurants that abut municipal parking fields.” The 330 Sunrise Highway parcel abutted a municipal parking lot, 340 Sunrise Highway did not.

A building permit was issued for the restaurant based on the merger representation. Just as the construction was nearing completion, the Building Department learned the merger of the two parcels never occurred. The Building Department refused to issue a certificate of occupancy until the restaurant obtained a parking variance. The restaurant entered into a license agreement that gave it access to 40 exclusive parking spaces next door from 4 PM to 12:30 AM weekdays. The parking variance was granted by the zoning board but the board imposed restrictions on the restaurant’s operating hours, tying them to the hours in the license agreement. It also required mandatory valet parking. The restaurant was unhappy with these restrictions and sued.

Although the restaurant prevailed at the trial level, it lost at the appellate court, which found that limiting the hours of operations to coincide with its access to the 40 parking spaces was proper. The restriction was aimed at protecting surrounding businesses and the expected increase in traffic congestion and parking problems.

Parking

In Fleetwood Chateau Owners Corp., v Fleetwood Garage Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op. 06431 [2d Dept September 13, 2017], the owner of an apartment building sued a commercial parking garage located on an adjoining parcel to enforce a restrictive covenant contained in a 1924 deed. That restrictive covenant prohibited the construction of nonresidential structures including garages unless the garages were for the exclusive use of occupants of any building built on the property.

In 1929, an apartment building was built on one part of the property. In 1931, a private parking garage was built on another part of the property. The entire site was sold at least twice after that. When the entire site was sold in 1988, the deed failed to mention the 1924 restrictive covenant.

The next purchaser subdivided the property. In 1990, the apartment building portion of the property was sold to Fleetwood Chateau Owners Corp. In 1991, the parking garage portion of the property was sold to Fleetwood Garage Corp. which intended to use it as a commercial parking garage.  Neither of these deeds referenced the 1924 restrictive covenant. Neither Fleetwood entity was a party to the 1924 deed nor mentioned in it as a beneficiary.

The Court noted that restrictive covenants, which place restraints on servient properties in favor of dominant parcels, are strictly construed against parties seeking to enforce them as they encumber the use of real property. The Court further noted that since it was not a party to the 1924 deed and was not mentioned in the deed as a beneficiary, Fleetwood Chateau Owners Corp. had to demonstrate the existence of a common plan or scheme of building development in order to enforce the restrictive covenant.

The Court found that there was no common development plan created for the owners of the subdivided lots.   The Court found no evidence that in 1924, when the land was sold as one parcel, that there was any obligation to subdivide the site. As a result, the Court found that “the covenant cannot be said to have benefitted any part of the land burdened by it.” The Court reasoned that the common grantor to the Fleetwood entities had owned the entire site and was free to do whatever it chose with the property except as against the 1924 grantee who had placed the restriction in the 1924 deed or those that “stood in his shoes.” As the Fleetwood entities solely derived their interest from the 1990/1991 grantee, and their deeds did not contain any restrictive covenant, “the original covenant is not enforceable as between” them. As a result, Fleetwood Chateau Owners Corp. had no standing to enforce the covenant and the parking garage was able to continue operating.

voidable-contractsAlso known as negative easements, restrictive covenants can wreak havoc on the ability to develop property. Recently, in our real estate practice at Farrell Fritz, we have seen two alarming examples.

In both cases, the restrictive covenant combined with applying municipal zoning requirements precluded the development of the property. Fortunately, we had inserted language into the contracts that allowed the client to cancel the contract with no negative financial consequences.

Restrictive Covenants and Land Use Regulations

One such instance involved a waterfront parcel on Shinnecock Bay in the Town of Southampton. This property was subject to the Town’s wetland law, which regulates the setback of structures in relation to the location of the wetlands on site. Through a title search, we found out that the property was also burdened by a private covenant that also restricted the location of structures.

This covenant contained specific language which required that a structure constructed on the site be setback at least 85 feet from the street. From the opposite side of the property, the Town’s wetland regulations required that a principal structure be at least 125 feet from the wetlands.

Applying both the wetland setback and covenant setback resulted in a negative building envelope.

Since this covenant was included as part of the subdivision process, all 26 owners of lots in the subdivision had to sign off on a waiver of the covenant requirements.

Another similar circumstance occurred where a covenant in a deed for a lakefront property required that any structure constructed on the premises be situated 60 feet from the street. This property was also subject to the same 125-foot wetland setback as the previous example. Again, application of both setbacks rendered the lot unbuildable.

In this instance, the covenant was unusual. It only benefitted the sellers of the lot, who also owned other properties in the area. The sellers specifically retained the right to modify the restrictions imposed by the covenant.

If applied to their fullest extent, both restrictions result in a lot that cannot be developed.

Relief From Restrictive Covenants

Obviously, a property owner could apply for relief to the municipal agency having authority over wetland regulations. However, these municipal boards are under increasing pressure to preserve wetlands which protect water bodies, so relief from these restrictions is difficult to obtain. Extinguishment of the covenant is the only other option. There are three ways to extinguish a covenant:  (1) an agreement between the interested parties to the covenants; (2) a merger of ownership or (3) a final decision by a court of law.

All three paths are challenging.

To obtain an agreement to extinguish the covenant in my first example would require consent from the other 25 property owners in the subdivision.

Because of the vague nature of the language that created the covenant in the lakefront example, extinguishment involves a difficult title challenge. There, a prospective developer must research title ownership of the nearby properties to determine those owned by the persons that created the covenant. After that research, a perspective purchaser must then obtain an agreement of all current property owners in the chain of title of the affected properties to amend the covenant.

Second, to merge ownership would require the purchase of the properties that benefit from the covenant. A purchase of the necessary lots in both examples above would be cost prohibitive.

Finally, a party looking to extinguish a covenant can commence a litigation under §1500 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. There are too many causes of action under §1500 to list here; but extinguishing a well written covenant through the court system would be a difficult, time consuming, and expensive task.

The obvious advice here is to authorize a title company to provide any covenants and easements that could affect the development of a property under consideration for purchase prior to entering into contract of sale.