Riegert Apts. Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 57 N.Y.2d 206 (1982)
r
r
A town’s authority to regulate land development through subdivision plat approval (Town Law §§ 276, 277) is distinct from its authority to regulate individual site plans (Town Law § 274-a), and conditions such as mandatory parkland dedication or money-in-lieu-of-land, permissible for subdivision plats, cannot be imposed for site plan approvals.
r
r
Summary
r
Riegert Apts. Corp. sought to recover funds paid under protest to the Town of Clarkstown’s Planning Board. The Board had conditioned site plan approval on a payment of $16,800 as “money-in-lieu-of-land” for park development. Riegert argued that while Town Law §§ 276 and 277 allow such conditions for subdivision plats, § 274-a, governing site plans, does not. The New York Court of Appeals held that the town lacked statutory authority to impose the fee for site plan approval. The Court emphasized the distinct nature of site plans versus subdivision plats and the specific legislative grants required for land use regulation.
r
r
Facts
r
Raymond and Nanette Riegert, petitioner’s predecessors, owned a 7.40-acre tract in Clarkstown. In 1974 and 1976, they obtained zoning amendments and modifications, agreeing to conditions such as limiting apartment units, conveying land for road widening and flood control. Riegert Apts. Corp. later purchased the remaining acreage. In 1978, Riegert submitted a site plan for construction. The Planning Board approved the site plan but imposed a condition that Riegert deposit $16,800 with the town as “money-in-lieu-of-land” for parkland.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Riegert commenced a proceeding to recover the payment, arguing the town lacked authority to impose the condition. Special Term ruled for the Town. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the Town Law authorizes a town planning board to require a developer to pay money-in-lieu-of-land for park development as a condition of site plan approval under § 274-a, when such a requirement is explicitly authorized for subdivision plat approval under §§ 276 and 277.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the Town Law distinguishes between the approval processes for subdivision plats and site plans, granting explicit authority to require parkland dedication (or money in lieu thereof) only in the context of subdivision plat approval.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court emphasized that municipalities only have the power to regulate land use through legislative grants. It examined Town Law §§ 276, 277, and 274-a, noting the specific language distinguishing