We do not need to decide whether heightened scrutiny under Dolan v City of Tigard (512 US 374 [1994]) applies to the facts of this case because I believe the Town of Hendon’s action effected a taking even under the standard articulated in Agins v City of Tiburon (447 US 255 [1980]). Additionally, because the condition imposed by the Town was not necessary to mitigate any demonstrable effects of the site plan proposal, I conclude the Town’s determination was arbitrary and capricious. I therefore respectfully dissent.
Paul and Janet Smith are the owners of 9.7 acres of undeveloped land that was part of a larger parcel owned by Paul’s family for over 50 years. Portions of their land lie within four of the Town of Hendon’s environmental protection overlay districts (EPODs) under Hendon Town Code § 200-23. The Town Code’s *26EPOD regulations place severe restrictions on activities that may occur in EPODs, and development in EPODs is prohibited unless the landowner first applies for and obtains a special development permit from the Town. The Smiths sought approval to build a single-family home on their parcel. Although construction of the Smiths’ proposed home would not encroach on any of these EPODs, the Town granted approval of the site plan only on condition that the Smiths agree to file a conservation restriction affecting the EPODs. The restriction in large part mirrors the regulations already imposed under the EPOD ordinance but provides that it will exist in perpetuity. The Town reasoned that such a restriction “will provide the most meaningful and responsible means of protecting the environmental resources” located in the EPOD portions of the Smiths’ lot.
The issue before us is whether the Town’s imposition of the development restriction as a condition to granting site plan approval effects a regulatory taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Under Agins, a regulatory action may effect a taking where it “does not substantially advance legitimate state interests” (Agins, 447 US at 260). Put another way, “a use restriction on real property may constitute a ‘taking’ if not reasonably necessary to the effectuation of a substantial public purpose” (Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v City of New York, 438 US 104, 127 [1978]). Although it has been intimated that the regulatory action need only bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose (see City of Monterey v Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 US 687, 701, 721 [1999]), the United States Supreme Court has rejected the notion that the “substantially advance” standard simply means that “the State could rationally have decided that the measure adopted might achieve the State’s objective” (Nollan v California Coastal Commn., 483 US 825, 834 n 3 [1987] [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). Furthermore, it has long been established that the issue of whether a taking has occurred “depends largely ‘upon the particular circumstances [in that] case’ ” (Penn Cent., 438 US at 124, quoting United States v Central Eureka Min. Co., 357 US 155, 168 [1958]).
The Town proffers three reasons why the restriction substantially promotes its valid goal of preserving the environment. I cannot conclude that the reasons offered by the Town substantially or even reasonably further legitimate governmental interests not already protected by the existing EPOD regulations.
*27First, the Town claims that the conservation restriction, which is to be filed similar to a deed, “is intended to put subsequent buyers on notice that the property contains constraints which may limit development within these environmentally sensitive areas of the site.” Pursuant to the Town’s EPOD regulations, however, the locations of all EPOD sites within the Town are delineated on an official set of maps on file with the Town. Subsequent purchasers are therefore already on constructive notice that the Smiths’ property contains EPODs and is subject to the limitations currently in place pursuant to the Town Code, which the proposed conservation restriction largely follows. Hence, the restriction does not in any meaningful way advance a necessary public notice purpose.
Second, the Town asserts that the conservation restriction strengthens the available enforcement mechanisms, particularly the ability of the Town to seek injunctive relief. Even without the restriction, it is well settled that the Town could seek to enjoin any activity on the property which is violative of land-use regulations (see Town Law § 268 [2]; Town of Throop v Leema Gravel Beds, 249 AD2d 970, 971-972 [1998]; see also City of New York v Village of Tannersville, 263 AD2d 877, 879 [1999]). Therefore, in my opinion, the restriction does not promote additional environmental interests not already addressed by the existing EPOD designations.
Finally, the Town contends that the restriction will inhibit activity on the EPODs in perpetuity, whereas the EPOD ordinance could change at any time. This is true, but it does not provide a legitimate basis for imposition of the restriction. If the Town decides to repeal its EPOD ordinance with respect to one or more of the EPODs situated on the Smiths’ land, presumably it would do so because it no longer considers the designation of environmental restrictions on that type of property to be necessary or in the public interest. If restrictions were no longer in the public interest, the Town would have no valid basis for continuing them in perpetuity. Yet, under this scenario, portions of the Smiths’ property would still be encumbered by the conservation restriction while other EPODburdened parcels would be released from the restrictions on development—a result that would be neither reasonable nor fair.
In the end, it is the Town’s generally applicable EPOD ordinance itself—whose provisions the development restriction tracks—that substantially promotes the Town’s valid interest in *28protecting the environment. If this case involved a claim that the Town Code’s EPOD regulations effected a taking of property, clearly such a challenge would fail under Agins because the restrictions contained in those rules substantially promote environmental interests. But the added layer of regulation sought to be imposed by the Town through the ad hoc imposition of a conservation restriction as a condition to site plan approval does not further additional legitimate environmental concerns in a meaningful way and is simply overkill. To hold otherwise effectively permits municipalities to single out particular EPOD-affected landowners for double regulation. In sum, I conclude that the Town’s imposition of the conservation restriction without just compensation amounted to an unconstitutional taking.
Even if the conservation restriction does not effect a taking as the majority holds, I would still rule in favor of the Smiths because the Town’s determination to demand such a condition in exchange for site plan approval was, contrary to the conclusion of the courts below, arbitrary and capricious. Although a municipality may place conditions on the approval of site plans, such authority is not limitless. Under Town Law § 274-a (4), conditions and restrictions must be “reasonable” and “directly related to and incidental to a proposed site plan.” We have held that conditions are proper when they constitute “corrective measures designed to protect neighboring properties against the possible adverse effects of [a proposed] use” (Matter of St. Onge v Donovan, 71 NY2d 507, 516 [1988]). In contrast, conditions are invalid when “they do not seek to ameliorate the effects of the land use at issue” (id. at 517). Accordingly, courts have repeatedly held that a municipality’s imposition of a condition which is “not reasonably designed to mitigate any demonstrable defects” is arbitrary and capricious (Matter of Clinton v Summers, 144 AD2d 145, 147 [1988]; see also Matter of Castle Props. Co. v Ackerson, 163 AD2d 785, 786-787 [1990]; Matter of Black v Summers, 151 AD2d 863, 865 [1989]). Where a court determines that the imposition of a condition is arbitrary and capricious, the appropriate relief is to excise the condition (see Matter of St. Onge, 71 NY2d at 519).
Here, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the Town issued a negative declaration, finding that the Smiths’ proposed site project would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts so long as the development did not occur in any of the EPODs. The Town does not dispute that *29the Smiths’ proposed single-family dwelling would not have an effect on any of the EPODs, and the Smiths have maintained that they intend to comply with the requirements of the Town’s EPOD ordinance. The Town’s stated basis for imposing the conservation restriction was “to mitigate any potentially significant adverse environmental impact upon the site or upon adjacent sites.” Yet, under the Town’s own findings, the proposed site plan would not cause any environmental detriments that needed to be mitigated. As such, it is evident that the restriction should have been invalidated because it was not necessary “to mitigate any demonstrable defects” and was therefore arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Clinton, 144 AD2d at 147).
For the reasons stated, I would reverse the order of the Appellate Division and grant the petition with respect to the Smiths’ second and third causes of action.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith and Ciparick concur with Judge Rosenblatt; Judge Read dissents and votes to reverse in a separate opinion in which Judge R.S. Smith concurs; Judge Graffeo dissents and votes to reverse in another opinion.
Order affirmed, with costs.