This post was authored by Tyler Doan, Esq.
Petitioner owns property on one side of a road. Respondent owns roughly 6.8 acres across the road from Petitioner that contains a two-story 97 room hotel. Both properties are located within a Highway Commercial zoning district which exists “to encourage a full range of commercial activity along major highways.” The two properties are surrounded by other commercial properties.
In 2015 Respondent applied to the ZBA for an area variance to construct two new hotels on its property. In a determination dated January 28, 2016, the ZBA granted the variances. In a CPLR…
This post was authored by Tyler Doan, Esq.
Cook Communities (Cook) bought roughly 32.6 acres of land in Hall County to build approximately 200 attached townhomes. At the time of purchase, the land was zoned for agricultural housing. Cook sought to have the zoning map changed and the property rezoned as planned residential development. Cook argued that a denial of its request would be “an unconstitutional restriction on the use of the property” and “abolish or damage [its] property rights” without fair and just compensation in violation of both state and federal constitutions. In January of 2022 the local planning…
This post was authored by Tyler Doan, Esq.
Respondent submitted a major site plan application to the City of Buffalo Planning Board seeking approval of the construction of four apartment buildings. On November 8, 2021, the Planning Board issued a negative declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and a waterfront consistency review finding that the project was consistent with the City of Buffalo’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. On January 10, 2022, the Planning Board voted to approve the site plan with conditions. On March 6, 2022 Petitioners commenced an Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the waterfront…
The Petitioner challenges the determination of the Town of Tonawanda (Town), which authorized the condemnation of property owned by the petitioner following a public hearing. The property, situated along the Niagara River, includes a coal-fired electric generating station that was decommissioned in 2016 and water intake structures. Petitioner commenced proceeding No. 1 asserting that the Town failed to publish a brief synopsis of its determination and findings within 90 days as required by EDPL 204 (A) and asserting various other grounds for relief. Shortly thereafter the Town published its determination and findings pursuant to EDPL 204 (A) and petitioner then…
This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq,
A recent decision from the Suffolk County Supreme Court, Matter of Save Sag Harbor v Village of Sag Harbor, involving the village’s adoption of a local law that expanded the definition of an apartment building in order to allow more affordable housing. The village attorney had drafted a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA, which was given to the village board members at the public hearing, but there was no discussion by the board members or public commenters about the law’s potential environmental impacts.
After closing the public hearing, the board simultaneously adopted…
Opening the Floodgates: Axon Enterprises, Inc. v. FTC and the Weakening of Public Power
Keenen McMurrayIn November of 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a pair of consolidated cases including Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission[1] and Securities and Exchange Commissionv. Cochran.[2] These cases concern whether challenges to the adjudication processes of administrative agencies can properly be heard in a federal district court, without first going through the agencies’ respective processes.[3] This administrative agency adjudication process is established by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), which is a federal act that governs the procedures of administrative law.[4]…
