NY Appellate Court Holds Village’s Use of Eminent Domain to Construct a Parking Garage Failed to Comply with Environmental Review Procedures

This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq.

A New York appellate court held in May that a village board failed to follow the correct procedures for condemning land as part of a redevelopment project. Acquisition of the property using eminent domain had to comply with the state environmental review process, and because the village failed to take the requisite “hard look” at the traffic impacts likely to result from the condemnation action, its use of eminent domain could not proceed. Matter of Adirondack Historical Assn. v Village of Lake Placid/Lake Placid Vil., Inc., 2018 WL 2048953 (3d Dept. 5/3/18).

The Village of Lake Placid adopted a plan in 2017 to redevelop its Main Street, with part of the plan calling for the acquisition of two vacant parcels in order to construct a public parking garage. The village initially intended to negotiate a purchase of the parcels, which were owned by the Adirondack Historical Association, but it later became necessary for the village to use its eminent domain powers to acquire the land when it became apparent that an agreement could not be reached on the sale. The board had already conducted a review of the redevelopment plan under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a negative declaration, but this review had not addressed the possible impacts of condemning property under the redevelopment. As a result, the village undertook a new environmental review specifically with regard to the proposed condemnation, including holding a public hearing and comment period and retaining an engineering consultant to prepare the environmental assessment form review. After concluding this process, the village found that the proposed condemnation would not result in any negative environmental impacts and approved the use of eminent domain. The Adirondack Historical Association then initiated this litigation challenging the village’s compliance with the New York Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL).

Under the EDPL, the court was required to determine whether the condemnor’s findings and determinations complied with SEQRA. Preliminarily, the court found that the village did not impermissibly segment the environmental review process, as it was unaware of the need to use its eminent domain powers at the time of its initial environmental review. This was a sufficient reason supporting the village’s segmented review, the court found, and the village also sufficiently demonstrated that segmentation was no less protective of the environment.

The court found that the village failed to comply with the requirement that it take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of condemning the properties, however. As the court explained, SEQRA required the village to “thoroughly analyze the identified relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment” and its determination of significance had to be based on “a reasoned elaboration… providing reference to any supporting documentation.” Increased traffic fell within the type of adverse environmental impacts contemplated by this review process, and concerns about traffic were raised repeatedly during the public hearing and comment period, but as the court noted, “the record is bereft of any evidence that the Village Board took the requisite hard look at these potential traffic implications.” Instead, the board merely made a conclusory finding that there would be no substantial traffic increases as a result of the condemnation and claimed that its initial environmental review of the redevelopment plan was sufficient. The court rejected the village’s reliance on its earlier SEQRA process, however, because the record contained no evidence of the findings made in the initial environmental review and there was no indication “of any meaningful investigation into this area of environmental concern.”

Because the village failed to adequately review the environmental impacts of its proposed condemnation, the findings and determination did not comply with the Eminent Domain Procedure Law and its proposed condemnation could not proceed.

Matter of Adirondack Historical Assn. v Village of Lake Placid/Lake Placid Vil., Inc., 2018 WL 2048953 (3d Dept. 5/3/18).