You are here: / / PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED...
, , ,

PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town planning board’s approval of the development of land should be annulled. The land included wetlands which required an investigation and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and those requirements had not been met. The petitioners’ request for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) should have been granted:

​

“A lead agency’s determination whether to require a SEIS . . . is discretionary” … . “The lead agency may require a supplemental EIS, limited to the specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS that arise from: (a) changes proposed for the project; (b) newly discovered information; or (c) a change in circumstances related to the project” … . “The decision to prepare a SEIS as a result of newly discovered information must be based upon . . . (a) the importance and relevance of the information; and (b) the present state of the information in the EIS'” … . The limitations that apply to a court’s review of an agency’s SEQRA determination, that is, only to ascertain whether the agency took a hard look at the relevant areas of environmental concern and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination, also apply to the agency’s determination regarding whether a SEIS is needed, and the court may no more substitute its judgment on this point than it may on other aspects of agency decision-making … .

Here, the petitioners contend that a SEIS is needed because Scenic never obtained a jurisdictional determination from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter ACOE) validating  [the developer’s] delineation of wetlands on the subject property. They argue that, prior to issuing the determinations challenged on appeal, the Planning Board was presented with critical new evidence demonstrating that no jurisdictional determination had been issued by the ACOE for the subject property. The petitioners are correct. Matter of Shapiro v Planning Bd. of the Town of Ramapo, 2017 NY Slip Op 07734, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA)  (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/WETLANDS (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, WETLANDS, PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
HEARSAY DID NOT PROVE BANK HAD STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CAN BE REBUTTED BY PROOF OF DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE INSURER’S FILE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
Delaware Pleading Requirements Not Met in Shareholders’ Derivative Action
INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY PLAYING BASKETBALL.
Defendant Not Afforded Right to Testify Before Grand Jury—Indictment Dismissed
APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE CONSIDERED DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INTO A PIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED... PLANNING BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED...