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.
Furthermore, the court found that the need for a publicly accessible greenway (rather than a privately owned one with property owners' other rights, including exclusive access) was unreasonable. The city did not prove that the proposed path was necessary to counteract the anticipated rise in traffic due to the expansion.