 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 Contact Us 55 Smith Avenue Mount Kisco, NY 10549 p: 914.666.5600 f: 914.666.6267 Attorney Advertising |
150 Misc.2d 24, 565 N.Y.S.2d 371 (Sup. Ct. 1990)
The Town of Cortlandt sought to amend its Zoning Ordinance as it dealt with Asteep slopes,” and passed an amendment which excluded all land on slopes in excess of twenty percent for the purpose of calculating the density formula for lot counts in subdivision developments, based upon only an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and the issuance of a negative SEQRA declaration based only upon that EAF. Six months prior to the amendment’s passage, Ginsburg Development had submitted a cluster subdivision application to the Planning Board that called for the construction of 352 dwelling units on its property in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance’s pre-amendment density formula. Subsequent to the passage of the steep slopes amendment, the number of dwelling units permitted on the Ginsberg property was 233 and Ginsberg commenced an action seeking the annulment of the steep slopes amendment.
The Supreme Court invalidated the Ordinance, finding that the Town had developed little empirical data in the record to conclude that prohibiting construction on slopes in excess of twenty percent would not cause environmental impacts or that the purported environmentally protective purpose of the amendment, the protection of “steep slopes,” would be accomplished by its enactment. The Court held that the Town of Cortlandt=s cursory SEQRA review was not sufficient in analyzing the socio-economic impacts, including the impacts upon the future development of affordable housing and to community growth and character – noting that the term “environment” goes beyond the mere consideration of an action’s effect on the physical environment – of the proposed amendment, and overturned the Town=s Zoning amendment.
Twin Lakes Farms Associates v. Town Clerk of the Town of Bedford,
215 A.D.2d 667, 628 N.Y.S.2d 310 (2d Dep’t 1995)
A property owner commenced an Article 78 proceeding to compel the Town of Bedford to issue certificates evidencing preliminary and final subdivision approvals for its nearly 100-acre property, after the Town’s Planning Board failed to close the public hearing on plaintiff’s draft environmental impact statement in connection with its subdivision application. The Appellate Division, Second Department held that plaintiff was entitled to preliminary subdivision approval after finding that its application for such was complete.
Briarcliff Associates, Inc. v. Town of Cortlandt, 272 A.D.2d 488, 708 N.Y.S.2d 421 (2d Dep’t 2000)
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the then largest reported constitutional takings award granted to a property owner in New York State and held that the property owner did not have a compensable takings claim due to the municipality’s re-zoning of certain property to prohibit mining thereupon. The Appellate Division reasoned that the property owner could have continued to operate the existing mine on the site as a legal nonconforming use and that plaintiffs failed to show that they had been deprived of the reasonable return on their investment, taking into account the recent purchase price. The court noted the heavy burden plaintiffs faced in demonstrating a regulatory taking.
Town of Bedford v. Nelson Peltz, 283 A.D.2d 568, 727 N.Y.S.2d 119 (2d Dep’t 2001)
At issue was the use of a portion of defendant’s property in the Town of Bedford for the take-off and landing of a helicopter that was used as a mode of commutation. The subject property was formerly owned by the late DeWitt Wallace, the founder of Reader’s Digest, who also used the property for the occasional takeoff and landing of aircraft. The Town sought a permanent injunction prohibiting the property owners from using their property in connection with helicopter flights based upon the prohibition contained in the local zoning ordinance. The property owner argued the use was a legally nonconforming use. The Appellate Division, Second Department held that the use of the property was a significant, impermissible enlargement of the late DeWitt Wallace’s recreational airplane use.
Sposato v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Pelham,
287 A.D.2d 639, 732 N.Y.S.2d 19 (2d Dep’t 2001)
After a property owner was issued a building permit to construct a non-conforming garage in replace of a prior non-conforming garage, neighbors commenced an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the grant of the permit. The Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld the issuance of the building permit on the basis that the new, non-conforming garage was non-conforming in the same two respects as the predecessor non-conforming garage – that of height and the setback from the property line – and therefore was permissible pursuant to the Village Zoning Code as it did not “increase the degree of non-conformity.”
Spears v. Town of Cortlandt Planning Board, 44 A.D.3d 866, 844 N.Y.S.2d 84 (2d Dep’t 2007)
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing a proceeding brought by adjoining landowners to review the resolution of the town planning board granting the property owners’ application for preliminary subdivision approval. The Appellate Division held that the planning board’s interpretation of the Town’s subdivision regulations was neither unreasonable nor irrational and further that petitioners had failed to demonstrate that SEQRA review had been improperly segmented.
| Disclosure | Client Rights | Client Responsibilities | Recruitment |