Matter of Smith v. Town of Mendon

In Matter of Smith v. Town of Mendon (4 N.Y.3d 1, 10, 822 N.E.2d 1214, 789 N.Y.S.2d 696 [2004]), the Court held that "exactions are defined as land-use decisions conditioning approval of development on the dedication of property to public use" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A condition placed on land use is an exaction, and therefore an unconstitutional taking, if the condition lacks an "essential nexus" with the state interest for which it is imposed (see Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837, 97 L. Ed. 2d 677, 107 S. Ct. 3141 1987), and is not "roughly proportional" to the impact of the proposed development (see Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391, 129 L. Ed. 2d 304, 114 S. Ct. 2309 1994). In Town of Mendon, the Court rejected the petitioners' claim that the Planning Board's conditioning of site plan approval upon acceptance of a conservation easement was an exaction. The Court did not reach the "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests, deciding that exaction analysis does not apply "where there is no dedication of property to public use and the restriction merely places conditions on development" (4 N.Y.3d at 12). The Court have confined our exaction analysis to those cases where the condition affects a property owner's "right to exclude others," and where a fee is imposed "in lieu of the physical dedication of property to public use" (id., citing Twin Lakes Dev. Corp. v. Town of Monroe, 1 N.Y.3d 98, 801 N.E.2d 821, 769 N.Y.S.2d 445 [2003]).