You are here: / Environmental Law
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
, , ,

THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) EXEMPTED THE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY FROM ANY REVIEW REQUIREMENTS OF THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL); THE COMPANY WAS FREE TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to petitioner, National Fuel Gas Supply, for construction of a gas pipeline, exempted National Fuel from any requirements of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL). Therefore National Fuel did not need to comply with the notice and hearing requirements of the EDPL before exercising eminent domain of the land in dispute:

In 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity to petitioner National Fuel Gas Supply for its proposed construction of a 99-mile natural gas pipeline spanning from Pennsylvania to Western New York. … [t]his certificate …—which did not condition National Fuel’s eminent domain power on receipt of a water quality certification and which remained valid and operative at all relevant times despite the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s intervening denial of National Fuel’s application for such a certification—exempted National Fuel from the public notice and hearing provisions of article 2 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) in accordance with EDPL 206 (A). …

The question before us distills to whether the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to National Fuel satisfies EDPL 206 (A) so as to entitle National Fuel to exercise eminent domain over the land in dispute without undertaking additional review of the pipeline’s public benefit. If satisfied, EDPL 206 (A) excuses compliance with various provisions of EDPL article 2 where a proposed condemnor has successfully completed a review of the project’s public benefit and use before a state, federal, or local agency. * * *

… [W]here, as here, a gas company holds a valid certificate of public convenience or necessity from FERC for the proposed construction of a pipeline and that certificate places no relevant conditions on the eminent domain power and has not been stayed or revoked by FERC or a federal court properly reviewing its issuance, compliance with article 2 is excused under EDPL 206 (A). Matter of National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v Schueckler, 2020 NY Slip Op 03563, CtApp 6-25-20

SUMMARY OF THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DECISION REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ON JUNE 25, 2020 (SUMMARIZED ABOVE)

ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) APPROVED THE GAS PIPELINE, THE STATE DID NOT ISSUE A WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION (WQC) FOR THE PROJECT, THEREFORE THE PIPELINE COMPANY CAN NOT SEEK EASEMENTS OVER PRIVATE LAND PURSUANT TO THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL) TO INSTALL THE PIPELINE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, over a two-justice dissent, considering a matter of first impression, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a gas supply company could not acquire easements over private property by eminent domain for the installation of a pipeline for which the state denied a permit:

In February 2017, the FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] granted petitioner’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate a 97-mile natural gas pipeline from Pennsylvania into western New York. The pipeline’s proposed route travels directly across respondents’ land … . Within the voluminous certificate, the FERC found that petitioner’s “proposed [pipeline] project is consistent with the Certificate Policy Statement,” i.e., the public interest. “Based on this finding and the environmental review for the proposed project,” the FERC further found “that the public convenience and necessity require approval and certification of the project.” …

… [T]he New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) denied petitioner’s application for a WQC [water quality certification]. The WQC application, held the DEC, “fails to demonstrate compliance with New York State water quality standards.” Petitioner has taken various steps to challenge the WQC denial, including the filing of a petition for judicial review in the Second Circuit pursuant to 15 USC § 717r (d). It appears that those challenges have not yet been finally resolved. It is undisputed, however, that if the WQC denial is ultimately upheld, the pipeline cannot be built … . * * *

… [P]etitioner is trying to expropriate respondents’ land in furtherance of a pipeline project that, as things currently stand, cannot legally be built. Such an effort turns the entire concept of eminent domain on its head. If the State’s WQC denial is finally annulled or withdrawn, then petitioner can file a new vesting petition. But until that time, petitioner cannot commence a vesting proceeding to force a sale without going through the entire EDPL [Eminent Domain Procedure Law] article 2 process. Matter of National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v Schueckler, 2018 NY Slip Op 07550, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DOLLAR STORE; THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT NEED TO SEND THE MATTER TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO INTERPRET A ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH WAS ONLY A GUIDELINE CONCERNING THE ALLOWED LENGTH OF A BUILDING FACADE; THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, noting that the abutting neighbors (Cady and Crawley) had standing to contest the town planning board’s approval of the construction of a Dollar Store, determined Supreme Court should not have found that the matter must be sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a variance proceeding. Because the zoning ordinance in question, concerning the length of a building facade, was only a guideline, it was not necessary to involve the ZBA to interpret it:

Cady and Cawley’s residence is directly adjacent to the proposed construction site, and the proposed retail store would be directly across the woods from their property. The store’s main parking lot, which is located behind the store, is in the line of sight of Cady and Cawley’s property. As a result, the store is likely to obstruct or interfere with the scenic views within the scenic viewshed overlay district from Cady and Cawley’s property. Cady and Cawley have standing because they have demonstrated that they would suffer an “injury in fact – i.e., actual harm by the action challenged that differs from that suffered by the public at large — and that such injury falls within the zone of interests, or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” … . * * *

… [T]he Town zoning code states that “the length of any faÇade should generally not exceed 50 feet maximum [horizontal dimension]”. Insofar as the subject provision lacks any compulsory language, … this provision is deliberately phrased …  as a guideline, rather than as a prohibition; in other words, there was no requirement for a referral to the ZBA to determine the plain language of the statute. …

… [O]ur review of the record reveals that the Planning Board underwent a nearly four-year process that involved in-depth environmental impact reports, multiple draft EISes [environmental impact statements] and public hearings, which formed the basis of the FEIS [final environments impact statement] and SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] findings statement. Accordingly, we find that the Planning Board complied with its procedural and substantive requirements under SEQRA … . Matter of Arthur M. v Town of Germantown Planning Bd., 2020 NY Slip Op 03440, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

THE TOWN’S SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF A CAMPGROUND WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE CAMPGROUND CONSTITUTED ILLEGAL CONTRACT ZONING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town planning board’s adoption of negative declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) with respect to the expansion of a campground (BBFC) was arbitrary and capricious. The Second Department further found that the development contract between the town and BBFC constituted illegal contract zoning:

The Planning Board failed to adequately assess and consider the potential environmental impacts of the construction and expansion of the campground from 74 campsites to 154 campsites, and adopted the negative declaration based largely upon its finding that the campground had been operating 154 campsites—albeit illegally—for many years. Under the circumstances, the Planning Board’s adoption of the negative declaration was arbitrary and capricious.

… [T]he development agreement entered into between the Town Board and BBFC constituted illegal contract zoning. “[N]o municipal government has the power to make contracts that control or limit it in the exercise of its legislative powers and duties” … . The test is whether the development agreement committed the Town to a specific course of action with respect to a zoning amendment … . The Town Board agreed to amend the zoning code to permit 210-day occupancy limit, a change from the current 120-day occupancy limit, in exchange for BBFC’s agreement that the 210-day occupancy limit would apply to all of the campsites, including the original 74 approved campsites. This was an agreement binding on BBFC to give a form of consideration in exchange for legislative action and to limit the Town Board’s authority to change the bulk requirements in the zoning code until such time as BBFC would not be negatively affected by such change … . Matter of Neeman v Town of Warwick, 2020 NY Slip Op 03112, Second Dept 6-3-20

In the same matter, the Second Department determined the granting of an area variance for the campground, based upon the nonconforming campsites which had already been constructed, was arbitrary and capricious. Matter of Neeman v Town of Warwick, 2020 NY Slip Op 03113, Second Dept 6-3-20

/by
,

THE QUARRY OWNER HAD, AS A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE, A VESTED RIGHT TO MINE THAT PORTION OF ITS LAND SUBJECT TO A PENDING APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ZONING BOARD AND SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner had a vested right to mine that portion of its land subject to a pending application for a mining permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Petitioner operated a quarry, which was an allowed pre-existing use of the land, and had a DEC permit to mine 37.5 acres (the entire parcel is 241 acres) The petitioner was seeking a permit from the DEC to expand the number of acres to be mined from 37.5 acres to 94 acres. While the application for the permit was pending, the town enacted a new zoning law that allowed mining on only those lands subject to an existing DEC permit. Petitioner sought a declaration that it had a vested right to mine its entire parcel as a prior nonconforming use and Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding:

” [N]onconforming uses or structures, in existence when a zoning ordinance is enacted, are, as a general rule, constitutionally protected and will be permitted to continue, notwithstanding the contrary provisions of the ordinance'” … . ” By its very nature, quarrying involves a unique use of land. . . . [A]s a matter of practicality as well as economic necessity, a quarry operator will not excavate his entire parcel of land at once, but will leave areas in reserve, virtually untouched until they are actually needed'” … . “[W]here . . . the owner engages in substantial quarrying activities on a distinct parcel of land over a long period of time and these activities clearly manifest an intent to appropriate the entire parcel to the particular business of quarrying, the extent of [the] protection afforded by the nonconforming use will extend to the boundaries of the parcel even though extensive excavation may have been limited to only a portion of the property” … . …

… [T]he petitioner demonstrated that it has a vested right to mine those 94 acres as a prior nonconforming use … . In opposition, the respondents/defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Further, for the same reasons, the petitioner demonstrated that so much of the ZBA’s determination as found that the petitioner does not have a vested right to mine those 94 acres was affected by an error of law, arbitrary, and capricious … . …

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the petitioner’s motion to the extent of declaring that the petitioner has a vested right to mine 94 acres of its property as a prior nonconforming use … . Matter of Red Wing Props., Inc. v Town of Rhinebeck, 2020 NY Slip Op 03119, Second Dept 6-3-20

 

/by
, , , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PERMITS GRANTING THE CONVERSION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FROM MANUFACTURING TO RETAIL; PROXIMITY TO DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not have standing to contest the defendant City’s issuing permits allowing defendant CAB to convert property from manufacturing to retail. Plaintiff operated a grocery store 450 feet from CAB’s property. The Second Department held proximity was not enough to confer standing on plaintiff:

“In land use matters, . . . [the plaintiff] must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large'” … . “An allegation of close proximity may give rise to an inference of damage or injury that enables a nearby property owner to challenge a land use decision without proof of actual injury” … . “However, this does not entitle the property owner to judicial review in every instance” … . “Rather, in addition to establishing that the effect of the proposed change is different from that suffered by the public generally, the [property owner] must establish that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interests the statute protects” … . Thus, “even where [the property owner’s] premises are physically close to the subject property, an ad hoc determination may be required as to whether a particular [property owner] itself has a legally protectable interest so as to confer standing” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged standing on the basis of proximity, issues and interests within the zone of interests, and adverse impacts. We disagree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff had standing to commence this action. The plaintiff failed to allege any harm distinct from that of the community at large … . 159-MP Corp. v CAB Bedford, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01892, Second Dept 3-18-20

 

/by
, , ,

UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WHOLE FOODS STORE IN THE VICINITY OF A RECREATIONAL TRAIL AND A PUBLIC USE EASEMENT VIOLATES THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s violation of the public trust doctrine causes of action should not have been dismissed. The action relates to the construction of a Whole Foods store in the vicinity of a recreational trail and a public use easement:

… [T]he court erred by granting a declaration in favor of respondents on petitioner’s … causes of action … which allege violations of the public trust doctrine, because there are unresolved factual issues concerning the impact of the Whole Foods development on a recreational trail known as the Auburn Trail, including whether the development would require the constructive abandonment of the existing public use easements for that trail ,,, , Matter of Brighton Grassroots, LLC v Town of Brighton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00754, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

/by
, ,

WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPANY’S CONTRACT WITH THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT VOID; THE CONTRACT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BID SPECIFICATIONS WERE IMPROPERLY DEVELOPED WITH THE COMPANY OR DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE COMPANY RECEIVED THE CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined the plaintiff municipality breached its contract with defendant sewage-treatment company. The plaintiff municipality argued that, although there was competitive bidding under General Municipal Law 103 and 120-w, the contract was void because the bid specifications were improperly developed with the defendant and were designed to ensure defendant got the contract, but that argument was rejected by both Supreme Court and the Third Department:

… [P]laintiff provided nothing to contradict the proof that [use of defendant’s technology] served the public interest because it was safer, more reliable and less likely to generate troublesome odors than other technologies.

[D]efendant produced an affidavit from plaintiff’s then-mayor, who stated that the options for sludge treatment had been thoroughly investigated and that the type of equipment offered by defendant would further the public interest by stabilizing plaintiff’s sludge disposal costs, providing an environmentally sensitive means for that disposal and decreasing odors emanating from the WWTF [wastewater treatment facility] that might affect ongoing waterfront development. The then-mayor further averred that the bid documents were prepared by municipal employees and that the specifications included nothing of peculiar benefit to defendant. … Defendant’s president, a mechanical engineer, confirmed that point and averred that “[n]early any sludge drying pelletizing system on the market” could have satisfied the bid specifications. Plaintiff accordingly failed to meet its burden of showing that the 2004 agreement was void, and defendant demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment on claims relating to that agreement’s validity … . City of Kingston v Aslan Envtl. Servs., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00192, Third Dept 1-9-20

 

/by
, ,

ALTHOUGH A HEAT PUMP SYSTEM DRAWS HEAT FROM SOLAR ENERGY STORED IN THE GROUND, IT IS NOT A QUALIFIED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TAX LAW FOR PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR A $5000 TAX CREDIT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that a heat pump system, although it draws heat from solar energy stored in the ground, is not a qualified solar energy system within the meaning of Tax Law 606 (g-1). Therefore, as the Tax Tribunal found, petitioners were not entitled to a $5000 tax credit for the heat pump system:

… [S]olar energy system equipment is defined as “an arrangement or combination of components utilizing solar radiation, which, when installed in a residence, produces energy designed to provide heating, cooling, hot water or electricity for use in such residence” … . Here, the Tribunal limited the applicability of the tax credit to those systems that “directly” utilize solar radiation, an interpretation which petitioners assert is too narrow, …

… [W]e do not agree with petitioners’ assertion that the plain language of the statute unambiguously includes ground source heat pump systems simply because they utilize solar energy … . As the record reveals, heat harvested by a ground source heat pump system is not, strictly speaking, “solar radiation” since it is being radiated from the ground after being absorbed by the crust. Thus, although a broad reading of the phrase “utilize[es] solar radiation” could certainly include the system at issue, an interpretation excluding indirect utilization of solar energy is not unreasonable. Further, we find that the fact that the system removes heat from indoor air during the warm summer months and moves it to the ground, thereby not utilizing solar radiation, presents another reason to exclude the system from the purview of the tax credit … . Matter of Suozzi v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 00193, Third Dept 1-9-20

 

/by
, ,

UPON LEARNING THE STATE, BY EFFECTIVELY MISLEADING THE COURT, OBTAINED A JUDGMENT DETERMINING IT OWNED LAND IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK, THE COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 5015 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly vacated a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 in the interests of substantial justice because plaintiff (the State of New York) had misled the court in proceedings leading to the judgment that it owned land in the Adirondack Park:

Plaintiff argued at trial that, although it could not identify the specific instrument that gave it a superior claim to the parcel at issue, several instruments granted it title to most of Township 40 and that the parcel “was not included within the bounds of any exception” …  Plaintiff was aware that the success of this argument would threaten the claims of hundreds of individuals to land in Township 40, and misrepresented to Supreme Court that it would rely upon a judgment in this action to bring RPAPL article 15 actions against those individuals. Upon succeeding, plaintiff instead enforced the 2001 judgment against defendants alone … . It … became evident that plaintiff sought the 2001 judgment despite the doubts … regarding its ownership claims in Township 40 … . Plaintiff subjected defendants to selectively harsh treatment under a judgment about which it harbored doubts, in other words, and Supreme Court stated that it would not have granted the judgment had plaintiff taken the legal position it later adopted. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that these circumstances afforded sufficient reason to vacate the 2001 judgment in the interest of substantial justice … . State of New York v Moore, 2020 NY Slip Op 00008, Third Dept 1-2-10

 

/by
, ,

THE FACT THAT PETITIONERS OWN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE NATURE PRESERVE DID NOT GIVE THEM STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEQRA WITH RESPECT TO THE TOWN’S PURCHASE OF THE PRESERVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioners did not have standing to contest the negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) allowing the town’s purchase of land held by a nature conservancy:

It is well settled that standing to challenge an alleged SEQRA violation by a governmental entity requires a petitioner to demonstrate “that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large” … . Importantly, “[p]etitioners must have more than generalized environmental concerns to satisfy that burden and, unlike . . . cases involving zoning issues, there is no presumption of standing to raise a SEQRA or other environmental challenge based on a party’s close proximity alone” … .

Here, petitioners claim of standing is based upon the fact that they own property directly adjacent to the nature preserve and have asserted concerns that the Town, in conducting its SEQRA review, failed to consider the impact of increased motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic and/or the environmental effect that a newly proposed parking lot and hiking trail would have on the nature preserve. Initially, assuming, without deciding, that petitioners adequately established their ownership interest in the property directly adjacent to the nature preserve, their position as adjacent landowners does not automatically confer standing on them to challenge the Town Board’s negative declaration … . Moreover, petitioners’ asserted concerns fail to allege any unique or distinct injury that they will suffer as a result of the Town’s proposed land acquisition that is not generally applicable to the public at large … . Matter of Hohman v Town of Poestenkill, 2020 NY Slip Op 00013, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy