Fisher v. Giuliani case brief summary
720 N.Y.S.2d 50 (2001)
CASE FACTS
Respondent department of city planning (DCP) studied traffic, development, transit, air quality, and socioeconomic effects, before it proposed all changes to the theater district, other than the discretionary floor to area ratio (FAR) changes. The studied changes expanded the right of designated theaters to transfer development rights to receiving sites anywhere within the theater district, now enlarged to be next to the residential Clinton district, provided the transferor agreed to ensure operational soundness, use, and design of the transferring theater as a legitimate theater.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Judgment modified and remanded. The judgment was affirmed that SEQRA required a conceptual study when the discretionary FAR zoning changes were adopted even if also required when the applicant sought the special permit. A SEQRA report was not needed for zone enlargement, transfer, design, and other changes; respondent DCP's negative impact declaration examined environmental consequences of those changes into a 10 year foreseeable future.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
720 N.Y.S.2d 50 (2001)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioners, including residents of a
neighboring special district (Clinton), challenged theater
subdistrict zoning changes by respondents city and others. A Supreme
Court in New York County (New York) judgment annulled zoning map and
text changes, enjoined transfer of development rights, and directed
respondents to prepare an environmental impact statement under New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Respondents
appealed.CASE FACTS
Respondent department of city planning (DCP) studied traffic, development, transit, air quality, and socioeconomic effects, before it proposed all changes to the theater district, other than the discretionary floor to area ratio (FAR) changes. The studied changes expanded the right of designated theaters to transfer development rights to receiving sites anywhere within the theater district, now enlarged to be next to the residential Clinton district, provided the transferor agreed to ensure operational soundness, use, and design of the transferring theater as a legitimate theater.
DISCUSSION
- The appeals court allowed those zoning changes without a SEQRA study since respondent DCP's negative impact declaration (that those changes had no significant impact) was not affected by error of law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
- However, the appeals court severed and annulled the zoning changes that authorized a discretionary grant to a developer of an additional 20% of FAR for development at certain sites within the enlarged theater district which bordered the Clinton district.
- SEQRA required at least a conceptual study when the zoning change was adopted.
CONCLUSION
Judgment modified and remanded. The judgment was affirmed that SEQRA required a conceptual study when the discretionary FAR zoning changes were adopted even if also required when the applicant sought the special permit. A SEQRA report was not needed for zone enlargement, transfer, design, and other changes; respondent DCP's negative impact declaration examined environmental consequences of those changes into a 10 year foreseeable future.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment