You are here: / Environmental Law
, ,

THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND A FARM IN WHICH THE TOWN ALLEGED THE FARM WAS RUNNING A COMMERCIAL MULCHING OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF THE TOWN CODE; THE COMMISSIONER PROPERLY DETERMINED THE FARM WAS NOT VIOLATING THE TOWN CODE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets had jurisdiction over the matter and had the authority to determine a farm located in the Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve (Central Pine Barrens) was not running a commercial mulching operation in violation of the Code of the Town of Brookhaven:

Respondent Delea Sod Farms, Inc. (hereinafter Delea Farms) operates a farm in an agricultural district in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, where it primarily produces sod for sale that is used at, among other places, Yankee Stadium. Mulch and compost are stored and sold at the farm as well. The farm also lies within the Central Pine Barrens area as defined by the Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Act (ECL 57-0101 et seq. [hereinafter the Pine Barrens Act]), the Pine Barrens being an environmentally sensitive area of Long Island that contains an aquifer from which many locals obtain drinking water and is subject to “laws and policies . . . at all government levels to protect [it] from unbridled development” (… see also ECL 57-0107 [10]). Petitioner sued Delea Farms in March 2020 to enjoin it from running what was, in petitioner’s view, a commercial mulching operation that allegedly ran afoul of the farmland bill of rights and zoning regulations contained in the Code of the Town of Brookhaven (hereinafter the Town Code) as well as the terms of a conditional discharge entered following a 2017 guilty plea by Delea Farms in a code enforcement matter. Delea Farms reacted by requesting an informal opinion from respondent Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets as to whether its storage and sale of compost and mulch on the farm was “agricultural in nature” within the meaning of Agriculture and Markets Law § 308 (4). The Commissioner issued an opinion in July 2020 that the storage and sale of mulch and compost was an incidental agricultural use to the production and sale of sod at the farm. * * *

The Commissioner determined that Delea Farms was primarily operating the farm for sod production and harvesting, that it was not manufacturing or processing mulch at the farm and that the mulch and compost at the farm was either used on the farm itself or sold to customers who needed it to install the sod and nursery stock that was the farm’s actual focus. Matter of Town of Brookhaven v Ball, 2025 NY Slip Op 01686, Third Dept 3-20-25

 

, ,

THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUIRED “HARD LOOK” AT THE EFFECTS OF THE EMISSION OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS [HAPS] FROM THE PROPOSED “BIOSOLIDS REMEDIATION AND FERTILIZER PROCESSING FACILITY;” THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS THEREFORE DEEMED ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Article 78 petition contesting the town planning board’s “negative declaration” regarding a proposed “biosolids remediation and fertilizer processing facility.” The record did not demonstrate that the planning board took the required “hard look” at the effects of the emissions from the facility. Instead the board relied on proposed mitigation measures overseen by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC):

… [T]he planning board failed to take a hard look at the project’s potential adverse impacts on air, resulting in an arbitrary and capricious negative declaration (see CPLR 7803 [3]). The voluminous record includes the planning board’s meeting minutes, recordings and other documents, all of which are devoid of evidence that the planning board “thoroughly analyze[d]” the project’s generation of 12.7 tons of designated HAPs [hazardous air pollutants] before it issued a negative declaration … . Instead, the planning board appears to have determined that, because the project’s HAP emissions were “mitigated” to fall below the 25-ton threshold for a major source, then emissions at 50% of that rate were also mitigated … . Not only is this conclusion “without sound basis in reason” — it is not clear why the planning board decided that mitigating the impact of 25 tons of HAPs would do the same for 12.7 tons of HAPs — but also “without . . . regard to the facts,” as the record confirms that the planning board never considered the potential impacts of the project’s HAP emissions at al … . * * *

… [T]he planning board’s unexplained deference to DEC’s permitting standards and periodic monitoring with respect to the impacts of the project’s emissions on air quality does not satisfy its SEQRA obligations, resulting in an arbitrary and capricious negative declaration (see CPLR 7803 [3] …). Matter of Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. v Town of Moreau Planning Bd., 2025 NY Slip Op 01020, Third Dept 2-20-25

Practice Point: The lead agency for a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) declaration cannot avoid a “hard look” at the potential hazardous air pollutants (HAPS} which will be produced by a proposed facility by simply deferring to the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) permitting and monitoring of the facility.

 

, ,

SMI, A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY, RAISED A SEQRA CHALLENGE TO A LOCAL LAW ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY IN THE TOWN OF SENECA FALLS; ALTHOUGH SMI ALLEGED THE NEW FACILITY WOULD CAUSE IT ECONOMIC LOSS, SMI DID NOT ALLEGE IT WOULD SUFFER ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY; THEREFORE SMI DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LOCAL LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined SMI, the owner of a solid waste management facility, did not have standing to challenge, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a local law allowing the construction of a solid waste management facility in the Town of Seneca Falls. SMI’s claim it would suffer economic loss if the new facility is constructed was not enough to confer standing:

Those seeking to raise a SEQRA challenge must establish both “an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and . . . that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA” … .

… Although “[a] property owner in nearby proximity to premises that are the subject of [an agency] determination may have standing to seek judicial review without pleading and proving special damages, because adverse effect or aggrievement can be inferred from the proximity” … , the “status of neighbor does not . . . automatically provide the entitlement . . . to judicial review in every instance” … . The petitioner must also establish “that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected by the statute” … .

Here, SMI failed to establish, or even allege, that it had suffered or would suffer an environmental injury. SMI submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of its managing director, who averred only that SMI would suffer economic injuries if the local law was not annulled. Although SMI, as the owner of a solid waste management facility, is entitled to a presumption that it would, in fact, suffer such economic harm, it failed to establish that it has standing to raise a SEQRA challenge because economic injury does not fall within the zone of interest SEQRA seeks to protect … . Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v Town of Seneca Falls, 2024 NY Slip Op 06435, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: To demonstrate standing, a party bringing a SEQRA challenge must demonstrate an environmental injury which is in some way different from that of the public at large. Here no environmental injury was alleged. Therefore standing was not demonstrated.

 

, , ,

THE ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A USE VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLAR ENERGY GENERATION FACILITY WAS “ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS;” MATTER REMITTED FOR ISSUANCE OF THE VARIANCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined petitioners were entitled to a use variance for the construction of a solar energy generation facility, finding the denial of the variance “arbitrary and capricious:”

… [R]espondent erred in failing to afford petitioners a reduced showing relative to their application as a public utility because of the project’s minimal impact … . That the project will have a minimal impact was not only recognized by Supreme Court, but also is fully supported by the evidence in the record, including the unanimous State Environmental Quality Review Act (see ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) determination which found no significant environmental impacts … . * * *

… [O]ne cannot quarrel with the premise that New York State’s goal of transitioning to renewable energy is designed to benefit the public at large, and this project is in line with that goal … . * * *

… [P]etitioners’ submissions to respondent establish ” ‘that there are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to [grant a use variance]’ ” than to use an alternative site … . Matter of Freepoint Solar LLC v Town of Athens Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2024 NY Slip Op 06409, Third Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a rare rejection of an administrative finding as “arbitrary and capricious.” In light of the minimal environmental impact of a solar energy facility and the state policy supporting the transition to clean energy, the zoning board’s reasons for denying the use variance were deemed untenable.

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO INTERPRET A LOCAL ZONING LAW TO APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-judge dissent, determined the planning board did not have the power to issue a special use permit and site plan approval for a commercial park:

… [T]he jurisdiction of a zoning board of appeals is appellate in nature (see Town Law § 267-a [4]). Nevertheless, a town possesses the authority to enact a local law or ordinance vesting its zoning board of appeals with original jurisdiction (see Town Law § 267-a [4]), including, for example, to address questions of zoning code interpretation … . Here, the Code of the Town of Thompson expressly provides that the ZBA may pass on matters of interpretation as to whether a proposed use is permitted under the zoning code either “[o]n appeal from a[ ] . . . determination made by an administrative official, or on request by an official, board or agency of the Town” (Code of the Town of Thompson § 250-46 [A] …), the latter option being what was requested by petitioners. * * *

… [I]t is evident that a genuine question exists as to whether the project will fall within a permissible or prohibited use, and the Planning Board improperly resolved this issue on its own. “Planning boards are without power to interpret the local zoning law, as that power is vested exclusively in local code enforcement officials and the zoning board of appeals” … . As such, the issue should have been resolved either by the local code enforcement officer, or by the ZBA upon referral from the Planning Board (see Code of the Town of Thompson §§ 250-41 [C], 250-46 [A] … . Matter of Smith v Town of Thompson Planning Bd., 2024 NY Slip Op 06085, Third Dept 12-5-24

Practice Point: Check the Town Law and the local Town Code to determine whether a Planning Board has the power to act. Here the Planning Board did not have the power to interpret a local zoning law and determine, on its own, that the proposed development is a permissible use of the land.​

 

, ,

THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) DETERMINATION DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AREA WHERE THE APARTMENT COMPLEX WAS TO BE BUILT; DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND REZONING ORDINANCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “negative declaration” did not adequately take into account the historic/archaeological significance of the site where the apartment complex was to be built, and failed to include a necessary “consulting party.” The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) determination was annulled and the rezoning ordinance was vacated:

In our view, respondent’s characterization of the archaeological impact as “moderate” unduly minimizes the historic/archaeological significance of the project site. We also find it significant that respondent’s coordination plan … excludes the Stockbridge-Munsee Community as a consulting party, notwithstanding EDP’s [Environmental Design Partnership] report including the Stockbridge-Munsee Community as a key participant. By letter dated May 3, 2022, just three days before respondent adopted the negative declaration, a representative from the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Tribal Historic Preservation Office wrote to respondent “to state the Tribe’s strong[ ] disagreement” with the proposed negative declaration resolution. … [T]he representative explained that “our office concluded there would be serious and irrevocable impacts to [i]ndigenous cultural resources including a significant site known to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.” He further commented that “[f]or thousands of years the site was used for the extraction of resources for lithic tool making and camping along the [r]iver.” In 2021, a Stockbridge-Munsee Community Tribal Historic Preservation Officer submitted a statement to respondent explaining that the parcel “has high archaeological sensitivity and cultural significance for the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Nation. . . . The recorded Chert Quarries Precontact Site represents immense cultural and educational significance. For thousands of years this area was used for the extraction of resources for Mohican people.” Matter of Bennett v Troy City Council, 2024 NY Slip Op 05257, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: Here the failure to take into account the historical/archaeological (“indigenous cultural”) significance of the land and the failure to include a Native American group as a consulting party warranted the annulment of the SEQRA determination (“negative declaration”) and vacation of the rezoning ordinance.

 

, ,

PETITIONER, A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION FOR THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH OF THE FINGER LAKES, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A PERMIT ALLOWING THE DUMPING OF TREATED WASTE IN CAYUGA LAKE; ONE OF PETITIONER’S MEMBER’S DRINKING WATER COMES FROM CAYUGA LAKE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a nonprofit organization for the preservation and protection of the health of the Finger Lakes, had standing to contest a permit allowing treated waste to be dumped into Cayuga Lake. Standing is conferred if one of petitioner’s members suffers harm greater than that suffered by the general public. Here a member’s drinking water comes from Cayuga Lake:

… [T]he sole issue on this appeal is whether petitioner sufficiently pleaded that at least one of its members would suffer an injury-in-fact that is different from harm suffered by the public at large, such as to confer petitioner with standing. Petitioner alleged in its petition/complaint that its members would be harmed by the leachate produced by County Line [waste treatment facility], which would be treated by the Ithaca treatment facility and then dumped into Cayuga Lake. According to petitioner, the type of solid waste that County Line would handle would create leachate that contains per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (hereinafter PFAS), a by-product linked to adverse health outcomes and which the Ithaca treatment facility is not capable of completely filtering out of the treated leachate. Because the Ithaca treatment facility dumps treated leachate into Cayuga Lake and is incapable of completely filtering out PFAS, petitioner alleged that if County Line was permitted to operate its facility in accordance with its application, as DEC’s [*3]permit requires, PFAS would enter the lake and cause petitioner’s members harm. In setting forth this harm, petitioner specifically identified a member whose potable drinking water is only filtered through the ground in “beach wells” on Cayuga Lake. As these wells do not filter out PFAS, allowing PFAS to be dumped into the lake would render this member’s water contaminated and unsafe to drink. Matter of Seneca Lake Guardian v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2024 NY Slip Op 03856, Third Dept 7-18-24

Practice Point: Here a nonprofit whose purpose is to preserve and protect the health of the Finger Lakes had standing to contest a permit allowing the dumping of treated waste in Cayuga Lake. One of the member’s drinking water came from Cayuga Lake. Therefore the member suffered an injury greater than that suffered by the general public.

 

,

IN THIS GROUNDWATER POLLUTION CASE, THE POLLUTION EXCLUSION IN THE INSURERS’ POLICIES APPLIED AND THE INSURERS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE INSURED OIL COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the pollution exclusion in the plaintiffs’ insurance policies applied and plaintiffs were not required to defend and indemnify the defendant, which allegedly caused a gasoline additive (MTBE) to pollute groundwater. The fact that the additive was a legal substance required by the EPA did not matter:

… [I]t is clear that even if MTBE was not a pollutant in the context of its use as a gasoline additive, it was a pollutant in the context of its release into groundwater … . * * *

Qualified pollution exclusions are characterized by an exception for pollution where the discharge or release of the pollutant is “sudden and accidental” … . The terms “sudden” and “accidental” each “have separate meanings, [both] of which must be established for the exception to nullify the pollution coverage exclusion” … .. “[T]he meaning of sudden in the pollution exclusion exception” has a “temporal quality” (id. [emphasis omitted]), which is only met where the discharge occurs “abruptly or within a short timespan, of a significant quantity of the pollutant sufficient to have some potentially damaging environmental effect” … .

Here, with respect to the plaintiffs’ … policies that contained qualified pollution exclusions, the defendant failed to meet its burden to “demonstrate a reasonable interpretation of the underlying complaint[s] potentially bringing the claims within the sudden and accidental discharge exception to exclusion of pollution coverage, or to show that extrinsic evidence exists that the discharge was in fact sudden and accidental” … . In other words, the type of pollution alleged, which occurred undetected over many years, was not sudden within the meaning of the applicable law … . St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. v Getty Props. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 03510, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: A “pollution exclusion” in an insurance policy applies where, as here, the pollution occurs over years, as opposed to occurring suddenly and unexpectedly.

Practice Point: A substance can be legal and approved for use in gasoline by the EPA but constitute a “pollutant” when found in groundwater.

 

, , ,

THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT TOOK THE “HARD LOOK” REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT BEFORE APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SENIOR HOUSING ON GREEN SPACE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) took the “hard look” required under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) before approving the construction of a seven-story senior housing unit on land previously used by a tenant as a green space/sculpture garden which was open to the public:

This CPLR article 78 proceeding challenges a negative declaration issued by respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) relating to development of affordable housing on a lot in the Nolita neighborhood of Manhattan. The property is owned by the City of New York and leased on a month-to-month basis since 1991 to a corporation owned by the late petitioner Allan Reiver … . Beginning in 2005, Reiver used the lot as a green space/sculpture garden accessible through his adjacent art gallery. After the City identified the lot as a potential site for affordable senior housing in 2013, Reiver opened the space to the public directly through a gate on Elizabeth Street. The garden is currently open for a limited number of hours per week and is operated and maintained by volunteers.

* * * The Court’s role is not “to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives,” but to ensure that “agencies will honor their mandate regarding environmental protection by complying strictly with prescribed procedures and giving reasoned consideration to all pertinent issues revealed in the process” … . In other words, “[w]hile judicial review must be meaningful, the courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency” … .

Here, HPD identified appropriate areas of concern, took the necessary “hard look,” and rationally determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Matter of Elizabeth St. Garden, Inc. v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 03321, Ct App 6-18-24

Practice Point: A court’s role under SEQRA is limited to determining whether the agency took a “hard look” at the adverse environmental effects of a construction project before approving it.

 

,

THE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY PROPERLY ISSUED PERMITS FOR THE APPLICATION OF AN HERBICIDE IN LAKE GEORGE TO CONTROL AN INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) properly issued permits for the application of an herbicide (ProcellaCOR EC) in Lake George to control an invasive aquatic plant called Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM). Supreme Court had granted the Article 78 petition and vacated the permits. Applying black letter administrative law, the Third Department found no basis to overturn the APA’s ruling. The opinion is too fact-specific and detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [W]here an agency’s determination was rendered without a fact-finding hearing, a court’s review is limited to “whether [the] determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” (CPLR 7803 [3] …). In performing such review, “[i]t is well settled that a court cannot substitute its view of the factual merits of a controversy for that of the administrative agency” … . And, when “the judgment of the agency involves factual evaluations in the area of the agency’s expertise and is supported by the record, such judgment must be accorded great weight and judicial deference” … . Indeed, “[i]f a determination is rational it must be sustained even if the court concludes that another result would also have been rational” … .

Although an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it fails to conform to its own regulations, an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference if that interpretation does not contradict the plain language of the regulations and is not irrational or unreasonable … . Matter of Lake George Assn. v NYS Adirondack Park Agency, 2024 NY Slip Op 02356, Third Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Black letter administrative law for the review of an agency’s determination when there was no fact-finding hearing was applied here. The Adirondack Park Agency’s issuance of permits for the application of an herbicide in Lake George was upheld.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy