Uses and structures that do not conform to a zoning ordinance are deemed “nonconforming uses” and “nonconforming structures,” respectively. Uses relate to the utilization of land (e.g. type of activity/operation), whereas structures are dimensional in nature (e.g. square footage, height, setbacks, etc.). But, what is the proper classification of a nonconforming structure that contains a
All civil judicial proceedings must be in the form of an action – unless otherwise authorized by statute, i.e. in the form of a special proceeding (see CPLR 103[b]). While most lawsuits are brought solely in the form of either a “special proceeding” or an “action,” land use litigants frequently combine the two into a “hybrid proceeding-action.” In the land use context, special proceedings are commonly brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to challenge the determinations of local bodies or officers, and litigants will often simultaneously bring an action to assert one or more plenary claims for, among other things, declaratory relief.
The CPLR requires specific papers and pleadings for the commencement and prosecution of each type of lawsuit, and, concomitantly, for a hybrid lawsuit. A litigant’s failure to strictly comply with the CPLR’s requirements may render certain claims jurisdictionally defective and/or untimely. A recent Decision, Order and Judgment of the Supreme Court, Albany County, in Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, Inc. v New York State Pub. Serv. Commn. (2024 NY Slip Op 24288 [Sup Ct, Albany County 2024]), discussed below, is illustrative.Continue Reading Hybrid Highlights: Avoiding the Pitfalls of a Land Use Litigation Technique
In City of New York v Ball, 2024 NY Slip Op 24179 [Sup Ct, Albany County 2024], the Albany County Supreme Court upheld a determination of the Commissioner (“Commissioner”) of the Department of Agriculture and Markets (“Department”) that concluded the City of New York’s (“City”) local law banning food establishments from selling or serving foie gras and other force-fed products (“Foie Gras Ban”) unreasonably restricted and regulated farming operations in “upstate” New York.
This case concerned preemption and a conflict between State and local policies. The Court addressed the Commissioner’s/Department’s State agency power to effectively overrule local elected officials and the will of their electorate. At issue was whether an indirect, extraterritorial restriction or regulation falls within the purview of the farming protection framework, given that City’s Foie Gras Ban affected farming operations situated in Sullivan County – approximately 70 miles north.Continue Reading Foie Gras Faux Pas: City Runs A-fowl of State Farming Protections
OVERVIEW
The Shawangunk Ridge is a cluster of bedrock in upstate New York popular for its scenery and outdoor recreation. The Town of Gardiner’s (“Gardiner”) Shawangunk Ridge Protection District (“SRPD”) protects the scenic and ecological values of the Shawangunk Ridge and requires, among other things, a special use permit for development.
A property owner sought to subdivide and develop property situated within the SRPD; to wit: subdivide a 108-acre lot into two lots, maintain an existing dwelling on one lot, and construct a new dwelling on the second lot. The developer sought and obtained a special use permit and subdivision approval from the Gardiner Planning Board (“Planning Board”). Before the approval, the Planning Board issued a negative declaration pursuant to the N.Y. State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). Notably, the owner himself, a trained biologist and forestry professional, performed his own conservation analysis with respect to the Planning Board’s SEQRA review.
The Friends of the Shawangunks, an environmental conservation organization (“Friends”), commenced an Article 78 proceeding challenging the special use permit, subdivision approval, and negative declaration. The Supreme Court, Ulster County, dismissed the proceeding on the grounds that Friends lacked standing, and Friends appealed. On appeal, the Third Department reversed, held Friends had standing, and addressed the merits.Continue Reading Friend of the Shawangunks v. Town of Gardiner Planning Board: Litigation Concerning a Popular Outdoor Recreation Area Prompts the Third Department to Address Organizational Standing, Special Permit Criteria, and Whether Expert “Bias” is a Consideration Under SEQRA
In Riedman Acquisitions, LLC v Town Bd. of Town of Mendon, 194 AD3d 1444, 2021 NY Slip Op 02952 [4th Dept 2021], the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, addressed several significant issues concerning land development projects: (i) reversionary zoning, (ii) mandatory and discretionary site plan review, (iii) sewer agreements, and (iv) due process and
Last month, the Appellate Division, Third Department, held the Mined Land Reclamation Law (“Mining Law”), as amended, does not preempt certain local zoning laws which prohibit mining. Specifically, in Town of Southampton v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2021 NY Slip Op 03351 [3d Dept 2021], the Appellate Division held the
Last May, in Commissioner of the State of New York Department of Transportation, et al. v Polite, Index No. 610010/2019, the Suffolk County Supreme Court denied the State’s 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
With prospects of featuring its history and architecture on screen, the Village of Amityville (“Amityville“) has been considering adopting a local law to regulate filming and photography for movies, television and commercials. The purpose of the proposed law is to minimize the adverse impact of these activities for village businesses and residents, while
Tonight, the Incorporated Village of Farmingdale (“Farmingdale“) will consider amending its zoning code to expand permitted uses in its Downtown Mixed-Use Zoning District (“Downtown“). The proposed amendments will allow, among other things, legal and medical offices on the ground level of buildings. The changes will allow more space for non-retail
Failure to name a necessary party when challenging a land use determination may result in dismissal, and leave a challenger without further recourse. CPLR 1003 provides that the nonjoinder of a party who should be joined under CPLR 1001 (i.e. a person ought to be a party if he or she might be inequitably be