In Cady v Town of Germantown Planning Bd., 2020 NY Slip Op 03440 [3d Dept 2020], the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Columbia County Supreme Court’s judgment annulling site plan approval, and dismissed the Article 78 petition. Among other things, the Court’s decision addressed whether the Planning Board exceeded its authority and
Smithtown Seeks to Reinvent the Hauppauge Industrial Park by Allowing Residential Development
The Town of Smithtown is considering the adoption of a local law that would allow residential uses as part of mixed-use developments in the Hauppauge Industrial Park.[1] The proposal follows on the heels of an April 2019 report commissioned by the Suffolk County Industrial Development Agency (“SCIDA”) which called for the park to position
Landowner’s Intent to Mine Property Sufficient to Establish Nonconforming Use
In a recent decision, Matter of Red Wing Properties, Inc. v. Town of Rhinebeck, et al., the Second Department held that a landowner’s intent to continue using its property for mining operations established a valid pre-existing nonconforming use.
Red Wing Properties, Inc. (“Petitioner”) owns roughly 241 acres of property located with the Town of
How and When to Challenge SEQRA Determinations: Addressing Ripeness and Finality in Article 78 Cases
How and when to challenge multiple municipal actions regarding a single project often perplexes Article 78 litigants. Varying statutes of limitations may apply to actions taken at various stages for one project, and the judicial concepts of finality and ripeness affect the viability of a challenge. For example, a litigant must challenge a lead agency’s
Short-Term Rental Law Survives Regulatory Taking Claim
For the last several years, municipal governments across Long Island, and beyond, have been taking action to control or outright ban short-term rentals in their communities. Inevitably, these efforts have met opposition from both entrepreneurial property owners and the home-sharing services that support them. Lawsuits challenging local regulation of short-term rentals have popped up across
Municipal Development Agreement: Found To Be Illegal Contract Zoning
In the Matter of Giora Neeman v Town of Warwick, __AD3d__, 2020 NY Slip Op 03112, the Second Department recently declared that a development agreement entered into between the respondent/defendant Black Bear Family Campgrounds, Inc. (“BBFC”) and respondent/defendant, Town of Warwick, (“Town”) as part of a settlement of a separate civil proceeding, constituted illegal
Appellate Division Affirms Annulment of License Agreement to Affix Private Dock to Property Owner’s Association Community Docks
The Lattingtown Harbor Property Owners’ Association, Inc., (“POA”) entered into a license agreement, dated November 29, 2017, with another member, Peter Tully, granting an exclusive right to affix private docks to the POA’s community dock in exchange for a license fee and services provided to the POA by Tully’s construction company. Another member of the
Court Denies Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Shinnecock Nation’s Project along Sunrise Highway
Last week, the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied an application for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the completion, maintenance and operation of two sixty-foot tall electronic billboard-monuments (“Project”) on opposite sides of State Route 27 a.k.a. Sunrise Highway, which Project is owned by the Shinnecock Indian Nation (“Nation”).
A. The Project and
The Coronavirus Lesson: Drive-Thrus are an “Essential Service” of Fast-Food Restaurants
In an effort to enforce social distancing and slow the spread of the coronavirus, many cities and states across the nation have adopted emergency orders mandating that restaurants, including fast-food chains, shut down their dine-in facilities. Not surprisingly, these new mandates resulted in a precipitous loss of business and have caused many restaurants to adjust
Letters Exchanged Between Developer and Architectural Review Board Insufficient to Constitute Enforceable Settlement Agreement
In Matter of Pittsford Canalside Props., LLC v Village of Pittsford Zoning Bd. of Appeals, et al., the Fourth Department held that settlement correspondence between a development firm, Pittsford Canalside Properties, LLC (“PCP” or “Petitioner”), and the Village of Pittsford Architectural Preservation and Review Board (the “ARB”), was not an enforceable settlement agreement.
PCP