ARTICLE
15 September 2026

General Municipal Law § 239-m: Developers Beware

FF
Farrell Fritz, P.C.

Contributor

Farrell Fritz is a full-service regional law firm with approximately 80 attorneys in five offices, dedicated to serving closely-held/privately-owned/family owned businesses, high net worth individuals and families, and nonprofit organizations. Farrell Fritz handles legal matters in the areas of bankruptcy and restructuring; business divorce; commercial litigation; construction; corporate and finance; emerging companies and venture capital; employment law; environmental law; estate litigation; healthcare; land use and zoning; New York State Regulatory and Government Relations; not-for-profit law; real estate; tax planning and controversy; tax certiorari, and trusts and estates.

New York's General Municipal Law § 239-m requires municipal boards to refer certain planning and zoning actions to county planning boards before approval. What happens when a multi-million-dollar development project moves forward without this crucial referral, and can the damage be undone?
United States Real Estate and Construction
Farrell Fritz, P.C. are most popular:
  • with Finance and Tax Executives
  • in North America
  • with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy industries

A multi-million-dollar development project which relies on site plans approved by a municipal board months prior is ready to break ground. However, the municipal board failed to refer the plans to the county planning board before approving them. The result? A multi-million-dollar illegal structure.

In order to ensure that local municipal planning and zoning decisions do not negatively harm a neighboring community or the county, General Municipal Law § 239-m requires certain actions, for properties within five hundred feet of certain boundaries such as neighboring city, village or towns or county or state park, be referred to the county planning board or regional planning board. This includes issuing special permits, approving site plans or granting use or area variances to properties, which, of course, are crucial and routine to most development projects.

When a municipal board fails to comply with General Municipal Law § 239-m it nullifies the action in its entirety. The nullification of the action can then have a ripple effect making every approval thereafter also illegal. Save Harrison. Inc. v. Town/Village of Harrison, 168 A.D.3d 949, 653-954 (2d Dept 2019).

Even more problematic, failure to comply with Section 239-m is a jurisdictional defect and not constrained by the usual thirty-day statute of limitations. A challenge can come up to six years after the action (CPLR 213(1)). The result could be catastrophic as projects forge forward, not knowing the initial misstep until a challenge occurs, months or even years later.

What’s the remedy? The Courts have been clear, there isn’t one. At least not an efficient one. Consistently the Courts have nullified municipal board actions that fail to comply with General Municipal Law § 239-m and remit the matter back to the municipal boards for compliance with the statute. Eastport Alliance v. Lofaro, 13 A.D.3d 527, 529 (2d Dept 2004); Zelnick v. Small, 268 A.D.2d 527, 529 (2d Dept 2000). The delays associated with such acts can be crippling to any project.

There is one work around. A municipality and county planning board can enter into an agreement allowing the municipality to grant special permits, site plans and/or variances without the county planning board’s approval. However, developers beware, these agreements are generally reserved for single family residential properties and not larger, more complex development projects.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More