Further, the Court held that the requirement for a public greenway (as opposed to a private one, to which Dolan would retain other rights of property owners, such as the right of exclusive access), was excessive, and that the City failed to meet its burden of establishing that the proposed pathway was necessary to offset the increased traffic which would be caused by the proposed expansion.
The court found that the requirement for a publicly accessible greenway (instead of a privately owned one with other property owners' rights, including exclusive access) was excessive. The city could not demonstrate that the proposed path was necessary to offset the increased traffic expected from the expansion project.