Town Board adopted a new comprehensive plan, which set forth new guidelines for land uses in the Town of East Hampton. A committee formed afterwards suggested amendments to the Town’s Open Space Preservation Law. Specifically, the amendments sought to “increase the percentage of real property required to be set aside for the preservation of open space as a condition of the approval for a subdivision in three residential zones.” An environmental assessment form was prepared after it was determined that the amendments were an “unlisted action” pursuant to SEQRA. The environmental assessment form highlighted the conclusion that the amendments would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Subsequently, the amendments were enacted.
Petitioners, owners of three parcels of land which would be upzoned from the action, brought an article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the local law on the grounds that it violated requirements of SEQRA. The lower court dismissed the portion of petitioner’s complaint that sought to declare the local laws null and void. The lower court, however, granted the article 78 petition to assess the SEQRA issue. The matter was remitted to the Town Board for a full review pursuant to the requirements of SEQRA. The appellate division affirmed because the Town Board issued a negative declaration without taking a hard look at the adverse impact criteria. Noting the low threshold required for environmental review, the Court said that, “Here, a review of the EAF reveals that Local Law No. 25, particularly the more liberal land-clearing allowances permitted thereby, implicates several of the criteria used to determine if a proposed action will have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including, inter alia: (1) a substantial increase in the potential for soil erosion, flooding and drainage problems; (2) the removal of large quantities of vegetation; (3) substantial interference with natural resources in the area; (4) the creation of a material conflict with the community’s comprehensive plan; (5) impairment of the existing character of the community; and (6) a substantial increase in the intensity of the land use (see 6 NYCRR 617.7[c][1]).”
Prand Corp v. Town Bd. of Town of East Hampton, 911 N.Y.S.2d 468 (2d Dep’t 2010)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2010/D29171.pdf
