Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014

Home

November 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 21 five remedy —such as some version of the one proposed by COAH in the Third Round Rules —in order for that remedy [(i.e., such as a growth share approach)] to be statutorily permissible." Zoning Bulletin Conditions on approval planning board approves preliminary plat Planning Board then imposes additional requirements in conditional final plat approval Citation: Nickart Realty Corp. v. Southold Town Planning Bd., 109 A.D.3d 930, 2013 WL 5226146 (2d Dep't 2013) NEW YORK (09/18/13)—This case addressed the issue of whether a planning board could impose additional requirements after granting conditional preliminary approval. The Background/Facts: Nickart Realty Corp. ("Nickart") owned a parcel of property in the Town of Southold (the "Town") in Suffolk County (the "County"). Nickart sought to subdivide the parcel into two lots and build a single-family dwelling on each. Nickart submitted to the Town's Planning Board a subdivision plan. That subdivision plan expressly referenced the grant of a variance Nickart had received from the County Department of Health Services ("DHS"). That DHS variance permitted Nickart to install a private on -site sewage system. That vari- ance was based, in part, on the transfer, from another parcel of real prop- erty to the Nickart parcel, of a type of development right known as a "sanitary flow credit." In April 2010, the Pluming Board granted conditional preliminary ap- proval of Nickart's subdivision plan. In June, 2010, the Planning Board deemed substantially complete Nickart's application for final plat approval. However, in July, 2010, the Planning Board adopted a resolu- tion granting a "conditional" final plat approval, requiring, for the first time, that Nickart submit proof of either: (1) its compliance with chapter 117 of the Town's Code, which places strict limits of sanitary -flow -credit development rights; or (2) approval by the DHS for the two -lot subdivi- sion that was not dependent on a transfer of a sanitary flow credit. Thereafter; Nickart commenced a legal action. It asked the court to de- clare that the Planning Board's resolution granting a "conditional" final plat approval was invalid insofar as it imposed the new condition. The supreme court agreed with Nickart. The Planning Board appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, affirmed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New 8 © 2013 Thomson Reuters