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
The Nature Conservancy (TNC), a global environmental nonprofit founded in 1951, is offering grants of up to $50,000 across Long Island and New York State to support conservation and climate adaptation initiatives, with a focus on projects that protect lands and waters crucial for adapting to climate change.
This initiative is part of TNC’s 2025 Climate Resilience Grant Program (CRGP), which awards grants to local organizations and supports fee and easement acquisitions connecting critical floodplains and shorelines, helping to mitigate flooding and erosion. The program also provides funding for organizational capacity-building, as well as planning and strategy development.
TNC prioritizes projects that involve meaningful community engagement, especially in underserved and frontline communities, and that work with groups historically excluded from conservation, aiming for more equitable outcomes for people and communities.Continue Reading Empowering Long Island’s Future: Nature Conservancy Supports Local Conservation Efforts
Failing to file a notice of claim pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) Section 9802 can become a trap for the unwary litigator who commences a hybrid proceeding-action (Article 78 claim(s) combined with plenary cause(s) of action) or a strict Article 78 proceeding against a village (see South Nyack Police Assn. v Village of South Nyack, 229 AD3d 635 [2d Dept 2024]).
Section 9802 provides that “no action shall be maintained against the village upon or arising out of a contract of the village” unless a notice of claim has been served. Although this language appears limited, Courts have interpreted it more broadly. Thus, a party bringing any action against a village must plead and prove, as a condition precedent to the litigation, that the party served a written verified notice of claim. The party’s failure to comply with this requirement can be fatal to the claim(s) asserted.
In South Nyack Police Assn., police officers and their association commenced an Article 78 proceeding against the village, mayor, and trustees, seeking to compel the village to compensate the officers for unused sick time. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, converted the Article 78 proceeding into a plenary action for breach of contract and declaratory relief, and denied village’s motion to dismiss. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court granted the village’s motion to dismiss based on the officers’ and association’s failure to comply with Section 9802 (i.e. the officers and association failed to serve a notice of claim).Continue Reading The Importance of Filing a Notice of Claim Against A Village: CPLR 9802 – A Trap for the Unwary Litigator
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
Typically, zoning variances “run with the land”, and absent a specific time limitation, they continue until properly revoked. See, St. Onge v. Donovan, 71 NY2d 507, [1988]. As a result, variances cannot be made to apply only to the current owner. But under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), reasonable accommodations can be made
In Matter of Marcus v. Planning Board of the Village of Wesley Hills, et al., the respondent, Rockland Tree Expert, Inc., d/b/a Ira Wickes, Arborist (“Wickes”), sought a special use permit and site plan approval to conduct arborist and landscaping services and to operate a nursery on its property located within the Village of
In Matter of O’Connor and Son’s Home Improvement, LLC v. Acevedo, et al., the petitioner, O’Connor and Son’s Home Improvement, LLC (“Petitioner”), owns a 120-foot by 57-foot parcel of property (the “Property”) located in the City of Long Beach (the “City”) on Long Island, which it purchased in 2015. In or around June, 2016,
In 2017, 8 Bayberry Rd, LLC submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Bellport (“ZBA”) seeking several variances to convert an existing three-car garage into a squash court and work out area resulting in a new 23 foot high building in the front yard, ten feet from the side
Plaintiffs own property in the Village of Freeport on Randall Bay and granted a drainage easement to the Village in 1961. The easement, dated September 6, 1961, allowed the Village to “construct and maintain one underground storm water drain and one tide gate accessory thereto for drainage purposes.” The Village constructed a drain pipe which