NY Appellate Court Sends Back Zoning Amendments for SEQRA Compliance but Finds Rezoning Determination was in Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Finds no Conflicts of Interest

This post was authored by Tyler Doan, JD

In 2015, the City of Saratoga Springs City Council adopted an update to the City comprehensive plan. As part of the update, the City Council revised a land use map that acted similarly to a zoning map. One of the proposed updates, was to change an area owned by Saratoga Hospital from an Urban Residential – 1 district to an Office/Medical Business – 2 district. Urban Residential was primarily used for single use family residences with special use permits and site plan approval for schools or religious institutions. Office/Medical business -2 districts require site plan approval and is used for medical offices, clinics, parking facilities, and other ancillary uses. After review the City Council recommended altering the designation of the parcel in question from Office/Medical business – 2 to Office/Medical business – 1 which has fewer permitted uses. The Council then reviewed under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and determined that the amendments would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and subsequently approved the amendments. Following the approval of the amendments, petitioners commenced this action for several causes of action including that the amendment related to the parcel at issue was contrary to the comprehensive plan and local zoning ordinances and that the requirements of SEQRA were not followed. The City of Saratoga Springs moved to dismiss the petition/complaint. The Supreme Court granted the respondent’s motion and dismissed the petition/complaint. Petitioners appealed.

The first argument that the Appellate Court addressed was that the City Council did not comply with the SEQRA requirements. The Court stated that they would not vacate a SEQRA determination “so long as [the lead agency] identified the pertinent areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them and advanced a reasoned elaboration of the grounds for its determination.” The Court points to the previous determination by the City Council’s that “if Saratoga Hospital submitted a development application, it would be subject to evaluation of potential environmental impacts . . . and that such review will clearly be no less protective of the environment than any hypothetical speculative review that the City Council could possibly undertake at that time.” The Court further pointed to an environmental assessment form the City Council completed in consideration of the SEQRA issue which checked no for many areas under which are required for SEQRA. However, in allowing redevelopment for the parcel at issue, the Court determined that “. . . the City Council [did not take] the requisite hard look at the relevant areas of environmental concern prior to issuing its negative declaration as to the zoning amendment of [the] parcel as required by SEQRA, as it did not consider the potential development by Saratoga Hospital.” In such determination, the Court reversed the SEQRA part of the Supreme Court’s judgment and partially granted the petitioners’ cross motion to the extent of annulling the City Council’s SEQRA determination as to the parcel at issue and is remitted to the City Council for a full environmental review of the proposed action to the parcel.

The second argument the Appellate Court addressed was that the zoning amendments to the parcel at issue were in clear conflict with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances and constitutes impermissible spot zoning. The Court reasoned that since the amended uses of the parcel were not unsimilar to the institutional uses of the land which could have been permitted under the residential district, the Supreme Court correctly determined that petitioners did not meet their burden of demonstrating that the rezoning was unreasonable.

Lastly, the Appellate Court addressed the argument that members of the City Council were biased during the zoning amendment process and subject to conflict of interests due to campaign contributions by members of Saratoga Hospital. The Court was ultimately unpersuaded by this argument as the Court stated the receival of campaign funds in this instance “did not give ride ‘to an instance where a substantial conflict is inevitable.” Additionally, the campaign contributions did not amount to a violation of the City’s Code of Ethics or General Municipal Law and subsequently affirmed this portion of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Evans v. City of Saratoga Springs, 2022 WL 479403 (NYAD 3 Dept. 2022)