The Hedges Inn (Hedges Inn) is a pre-existing, nonconforming, historic inn with 14 rooms and a restaurant at 74 James Lane in the Village of East Hampton (Village) in the R160 Residence District. In February 2018, Hedges Inn submitted permit applications to the Village for four weddings to be held outdoors in tents at the
Second Department Reverses Denial of Existing Use Application, Holds Landowner Has Prior Nonconforming Use in Property for Storage of Construction Equipment
In a recent decision, Matter of Labate v DeChance, the Second Department held that a landowner could continue to use his property to store construction equipment, despite a zoning ordinance prohibiting that type of use.
By way of background, the petitioner (“Petitioner”) owns property located in Rocky Point, within the Township of Brookhaven (the
First Department Affirms Dismissal of Constitutional Challenge to Zoning Resolution
Last year, the New York County Supreme Court heard an Article 78 challenge by Preserve Our Brooklyn Neighborhoods (“POBN”), a civic organization dedicated to maintaining the unique character and historical significance of the Fort Greene area of Brooklyn, New York. This lawsuit, which I discussed in a previous post, turned on whether a
Utilizing CPLR 3102(c) Pre-Action Discovery in Article 78 Proceedings – Can’t Go Fishin’
Last February, in Dreyer v Stachecki, 2020 NY Slip Op 50134(U), the Suffolk County Supreme Court denied an unopposed motion for pre-action discovery. CPLR Section 3102(c) authorizes disclosure – prior to commencement – to aid in bringing an action or proceeding. In this case, the petitioner-movant sought the production of documents and depositions in
Second Department Affirms Article 78 Reversal of Village Zoning Board Determination
Petitioner, Claude Simon (“Petitioner”), owns approximately 2.25 acres of property in the Village of Upper Nyack (the “Village”), which he sought to subdivide into two separate lots. The first lot would contain the existing dwelling and other existing improvements. The vacant second lot would be improved with a single-family dwelling. However, the Village advised Petitioner
“General” Code Provision Saves Dollar Store Endeavor: Superfluous Interpretations Are Not Required
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
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
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
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
Zoning Boards May Consider the Proposed Use and Purpose When Deciding Area Variance Applications, But Cannot Forget the Five-Factors
When deciding an area variance application, a zoning board may consider the proposed use of the property and the purpose in seeking the variance. However, the zoning board cannot fail to account for the five-factor test mandated by statute (see General City Law § 81-b[4][b][i]-[v]; Town Law § 267-b[3][b]; Village Law § 7-712-b[3][b]) and