You are here: / Environmental Law
, ,

Town, In Reviewing a Special Use Permit Application Under Its Zoning Regulations after the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process Is Complete, Must Rely on the SEQRA Findings and Cannot Make Further Environmental Impact Findings

In a mining-permit matter, the Third Department determined that, once a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is approved after the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process is finished, the town (the lead agency) does not have the power to make further environmental-impact findings beyond those in the SEQRA record.  However, the town retains the power to do an independent review of the application for a special use permit under its zoning regulations:

…[A]lthough the Town is bound by DEC’s [Department of Environmental Conservation’s] SEQRA findings and it may not repeat the SEQRA process, it nevertheless retains the authority to make an independent review of plaintiffs’ application for a special use permit in accord with the standards and criteria set forth in its applicable zoning regulation … . That regulation provides that the Town may consider, among other things, the “health, safety, welfare, comfort and convenience of the public,” including “the environmental impact” of the proposed quarry (Local Law No. 2 [1986] of Town of Nassau art VI [A]). However, … the Town’s independent review [does not include] the ability to now gather additional environmental impact information beyond the full SEQRA record. Rather, in conducting its own jurisdictional review of the environmental impact of the project, the Town is required by the overall policy goals of SEQRA and the specific regulations governing findings made by “involved agencies” to rely on the fully developed SEQRA record in making the findings that will provide a rationale for its zoning determinations. Troy Sand & Gravel Co Inc v Town of Nassau, 2015 NY Slip Op 01511, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

, , ,

Department of Environmental Conservation’s Finding that the Owners of Land on Either Side of a Creek Also Owned a Dam Across the Creek, and Therefore Were Responsible for Making the Dam Safe, Was Not Supported by Substantial Evidence—Dam Had Been Conveyed to the City in Condemnation Proceeding

The Third Department determined that the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) finding that the owners of parcels of land bordering a creek also owned the dam spanning the creek between the parcels, and therefore the landowners were responsible for the work necessary to make the dam safe, was not supported by substantial evidence. The Third Department concluded the land under the water where the dam was located had been transferred to the City of Hudson in a condemnation proceeding:

We recognize that a riparian owner’s right to the natural flow of water along its land is properly classified as real property, equally with the land … . As such, a party could acquire an interest in the water flow separate and distinct from the land under the water … . The controlling point here, however, is that the “real estate” acquired in the condemnation, in conjunction with the indenture and agreement, is as defined under the WSA [Water Supply Act]. The comprehensive statutory definition for “real estate” embraces both the water and the “lands under water.” Because the [DEC] considered only the “rights” that the City acquired by the condemnation and not the “property,” the ALJ’s conclusion that petitioners own the dam is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Berger v New York State Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2015 NY Slip Op 01496, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

, , ,

First Responder, a NYC Police Officer, Was Entitled to the World Trade Center Presumption that Her Illness, Fibromyalgia, Was Caused by Environmental Exposure at the Site of the 2001 Collapse of the World Trade Center

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined a NYC police officer was entitled to the World Trade Center (WTC) presumption that her illness, fibromyalgia, was caused by her exposure at the site of the World Trade Center collapse in 2001.  The officer was therefore eligible for accidental disability retirement (ADR):

Administrative Code § 13-252.1 provides that “any condition or impairment of health … caused by a qualifying World Trade Center condition” as defined in the Retirement and Social Security Law “shall be presumptive evidence that it was incurred in the performance and discharge of duty and the natural and proximate result of an accident … unless the contrary be proved by competent evidence” (§ 13-252.1[1][a]…). “Qualifying World Trade Center condition” is defined to include, among other conditions, “[n]ew onset diseases resulting from exposure as such diseases occur in the future including cancer, asbestos-related disease, heavy metal poisoning, and musculoskeletal disease” (§ 2 [36][c][v] [emphasis added]). * * *

Here, the evidence shows that petitioner did not have fibromyalgia before September 11, 2001, and that she developed disabling fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome in the wake of her WTC exposure.

Because it was “caused by a qualifying [WTC] condition,” petitioner’s fibromyalgia is presumed to have been “incurred in the performance and discharge of duty and the natural and proximate result of an accident not caused by [her] own willful negligence, unless the contrary be proved by competent evidence” (Administrative Code § 13-252.1[1][a]). Respondents bear the burden of showing that petitioner’s qualifying injury was not incurred in the line of duty … . The Board of Trustees’ determination must be supported by credible evidence in the record … .

The significance of the presumption is that, “unlike ordinary ADR claimants, first responders need not submit any evidence — credible or otherwise — of causation to obtain the enhanced benefits” … Thus, the Board “cannot deny ADR benefits by relying solely on the absence of evidence tying the disability to the exposure” … . * * *

…[R]espondents have failed to rebut the presumption that petitioner’s qualifying condition, fibromyalgia, was caused by hazards encountered at the WTC site.  Matter of Sheldon v Kelly, 2015 NY Slip Op 01404, 1st Dept 2-17-15

 

 

, ,

Underwater Land Is Appurtenant to Adjacent Upland

The Fourth Department determined defendant had no ownership rights in underwater land appurtenant to plaintiffs’ upland property:

…[T]he court properly considered the deeds submitted by plaintiffs in support of their motion. All of those deeds, with the exception of defendant’s own quitclaim deed, are more than 10 years old and therefore are “prima facie evidence of their contents” (CPLR 4522…). With respect to defendant’s quitclaim deed, plaintiffs’ attorney swore to its authenticity …, and defendant herself relies on that deed in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion.

…[E]ven with navigable waterways, “when land under water has been conveyed by the state to the owner of the adjacent uplands, the lands under water so conveyed become appurtenant to the uplands, and will pass by a conveyance of the latter without specific description” … . Here, regardless of whether title to the underwater land merges and passes with title to adjacent uplands, or is conveyed separately, plaintiffs met their initial burden. Although the State initially conveyed uplands and underwater land to Charles Smyth by separate deeds, the underwater land thereafter passed appurtenant to Smyth’s uplands, including by deeds to plaintiffs and several other landowners on North Bay, but not to defendant. Even if the underwater land could be conveyed only separately, it would have passed to Smyth’s heirs and devisees, not directly to defendant. Kernan v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 01122, 4th Dept 2-6-15

 

, ,

Waterway Bordered by Private Land Deemed “Navigable-in-Fact”—Owners of the Land Cannot Prohibit Public Use of the Waterway

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, over a two-justice dissent, determined that a waterway bordered by private land in the Adirondacks was “navigable-in-fact” and the owners of the land (plaintiffs) bordering the waterway could not prohibit public use of the waterway.  The waterway was deemed “navigable-in-fact” even though a portion of it consisted of rapids which required canoeists to carry their canoes on a privately-owned path along the rapids:

Pursuant to the common law, a waterway on private property that is not navigable-in-fact is owned by the adjacent landowners, but a waterway that is navigable-in-fact “is considered a public highway, notwithstanding the fact that its banks and bed are in private hands” … . The State cannot alienate the right of the public to travel on a navigable-in-fact waterway by transferring title in its bed and banks to a private owner … . As riparian owners never obtain ownership interests in the waters of navigable-in-fact waterways, a judicial determination that the public has the right of navigation does not result in a taking for public use without compensation … . Accordingly, the import of a judicial determination that a waterway is navigable-in-fact is that it has always been open to the public in that character, even though the riparian owners may not have believed it to be, and no trespass was committed by a traveler who navigated upon it before a court ruled upon its navigability. * * *

…[W]here, as here, the State has no sovereign or proprietary ownership interest in the land and the waterway in question passes through private property, its navigability-in-fact is determined by a common law examination of “evidence of [the waterway’s] actual practical use or evidence of capacity for practical use” … . Historically, this analysis turned on whether the waterway had the capacity to be used for commercial transportation; the public was deemed to have the right to travel on “every stream which is capable, in its natural state and its ordinary volume of water, of transporting, in a condition fit for market, the products of the forests or mines, or of the tillage of the soil upon its banks” … . More recently, the Court of Appeals clarified that commercial use is not the only relevant factor, and that a waterway’s capacity for recreational use is also significant in determining its navigability. “[W]hile the purpose or type of use remains important, of paramount concern is the capacity of the river for transport, whether for trade or travel” … . The Court of Appeals stated that this holding neither altered nor enlarged the applicable common-law analysis and was “in line with the traditional test of navigability, that is, whether a river has a practical utility for trade or travel” … .

Accordingly, the Waterway’s navigability-in-fact must be determined based upon its utility for travel or trade as revealed by the testimony, affidavits, maps, photographs, historical records and other evidence in the voluminous record. * * *

The Waterway’s narrow, shallow character does not preclude such a finding, as a stream that can carry only small boats may nevertheless be navigable-in-fact … . Likewise, neither the portage around the relatively short Mud Pond rapids nor the presence in the Waterway of other incidental obstacles such as beaver dams and fallen trees renders the Waterway nonnavigable, as “occasional natural obstructions do not destroy the navigability of a [waterway]” … . On the contrary, the presence of such occasional obstructions in a navigable-in-fact waterway gives rise to a public right to circumvent them by “mak[ing] use, when absolutely necessary, of the bed and banks, including the right to portage on riparian lands” … . Friends of Thayer Lake LLC v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 00420, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

,

Biogas Facility Which Is Located on a Farm and Which Produces Electricity from Manure Is Not Entitled to a Tax Exemption Pursuant to the Former Version of RPTL 483-a

Petitioners use manure produced on petitioners’ dairy farm to generate electricity in a biogas facility.  The electricity is used to operate the farm and is sold to the grid. The Fourth Department determined petitioners were not entitled to a tax exemption for the biogas facility because it was not a “manure storage and handling” facility within the meaning of the former statute (Real Property Tax Law [RPTL] 483-a).  The court further determined that new version of the statute, by its explicit terms, cannot be applied retroactively:

…[P]etitioners contend that the facility is entitled to a tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 483-a (former [1]) because it is a “manure storage and handling” facility as contemplated by that statute. We reject that contention. Inasmuch as petitioners’ contention involves “a question of statutory interpretation, we turn first to the plain language of the statute[] as the best evidence of legislative intent” … . The former version of the statute provided that “[s]tructures permanently affixed to agricultural land for the purpose of preserving and storing forage in edible condition, farm feed grain storage bins, commodity sheds, manure storage and handling facilities, and bulk milk tanks and coolers used to hold milk awaiting shipment to market shall be exempt from taxation, special ad valorem levies and special assessments” (RPTL 483-a [former (1)]). We conclude that the anaerobic digester facility is not a “manure storage and handling” facility as contemplated by RPTL 483-a (former [1]) because the facility is not used simply to store and handle manure. Petitioners’ facility uses an anaerobic digester to produce biogas from the manure, which is then used to generate electricity, and the statute does not provide a tax exemption for an anaerobic digester or an electrical generator. Notably, another provision of RPTL article 4 defines the term “farm waste generating equipment” as “equipment that generates electric energy from biogas produced by the anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste” (RPTL 487 [1] [e]), but such equipment was not included among the enumerated structures in RPTL 483-a (former [1]). Furthermore, “words employed in a statute are construed in connection with, and their meaning ascertained by reference to the words and phrases with which they are associated” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 239 [a]), and the plain language of RPTL 483-a (former [1]) establishes that the tax exemption is applicable to structures used for the storage of agricultural materials, and not to structures used for the generation of energy. Matter of Synergy LLC v KIbler, 2015 NY Slip Op 00038, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants Exempt from a Consistency Review Under New York’s Coastal Management Program—No State Environmental Impact Statements Required—Federal Environmental Impact Statements Prepared in the 1970’s Deemed Sufficient to Trigger the Exemption Under the Plain Meaning of the Statutory and Regulatory Language

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined that the petitioners, owners and operators of Indian Point nuclear power plants seeking renewal of operating licenses, were exempt from New York’s Coastal Management Program (CMP).  The court explained that the plain language of the relevant statutes and regulations did not require the preparation of environmental impact statements pursuant to New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), as the Department of State and the lower court had ruled. The fact that environmental impact statements had been prepared in the 1970’s under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was deemed sufficient to trigger the exemption:

Petitioners particularly focus upon the second exemption in the CMP, which exempts from consistency review “those projects for which a final [e]nvironmental [i]mpact [s]tatement has been prepared prior to the effective date of the Department of State [p]art 600 regulations … .” 19 NYCRR part 600 took effect in 1982. Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 went into operation prior to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (see ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) taking effect in 1976 and, as such, environmental impact statements were not prepared under SEQRA. Final environmental impact statements were prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC § 4321 et seq. [hereinafter NEPA]), however, and statements were completed for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 in 1972 and 1975, respectively. Accordingly, applying the plain meaning of the language in the CMP, Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 are exempt from consistency review.

The Department nevertheless held that the exemption did not apply to Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 because their final environmental impact statements had not been prepared pursuant to SEQRA. There is simply no basis in law for injecting such a requirement. The Department noted that 19 NYCRR 600.3 (d) is cited in the exemption and refers to final environmental impact statements prepared under the SEQRA regulatory regime, but that regime permits the use of final environmental impact statements prepared under NEPA (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [n]; 617.15 [a]; Philip Weinberg, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 17½, ECL 8-0111). Indeed, SEQRA is modeled upon NEPA, and there is no indication that the final environmental impact statements prepared for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 would not have complied with SEQRA … . Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operation Inc v New York State Dept of State, 2014 NY Slip Op 08702, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

, ,

Type II Actions (Here Replacement of a Wooden Boardwalk With Synthetic Materials) Presumptively Do Not Have a Significant Impact on the Environment and Do Not Require an Environmental Impact Statement

Petitioners brought an Article 78 proceeding against the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) alleging that the plan to replace wooden planks in a boardwalk with a concrete/plastic surface violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the City Environmental Quality Review Rules (CEQR).  The Second Department noted the action was timely and the DPR’s determination the replacement of the boardwalk was a Type II action under SEQR and CEQR that presumptively did not have a significant environmental impact and did not require an environmental impact statement:

The DPR failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it made a final and binding determination to implement the plan, and that the petitioners were provided notice of such a determination more than four months before the proceeding was commenced (see CPLR 217[1]…).

… The DPR determined that the proposed boardwalk project was for a “replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind” (6 NYCRR 617.5[c][2]) and, thus, was a Type II action under SEQRA and CEQR that presumptively did not have a significant impact upon the environment, and did not require the preparation and circulation of an environmental impact statement. The fact that different materials were used in the replacement construction did not alter the propriety of classifying the project as a Type II action, and that determination was, thus, not arbitrary and capricious, made in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, an abuse of discretion, or irrational … . Once an action is properly classified as a Type II action under the enumerated provisions of 6 NYCRR 617.5(c), which the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has already determined to have no significant impact on the environment… . Matter of Coney-Brighton Boardwalk Alliance v New York City Dept of Parks & Recreation, 2014 NY Slip Op 08334, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

, , , ,

Issuance of a Positive Declaration that the Requested Rezoning May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment and the Requirement that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement Be Drawn Up, Under the Facts, Did Not Constitute an “Injury” Sufficient to Make the Matter Ripe for Court Review—All the Relevant Factors Discussed in Depth

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, determined that the town board’s issuance of a positive declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (finding the proposed rezoning to heavy industrial may have a significant effect on the environment) and the requirement that the petitioner (landowner) prepare and circulate a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), under all the facts, did not constitute an “injury” sufficient to make the matter ripe for judicial review.  Much of the opinion was devoted to distinguishing Matter of Gordon v Rush, 100 NY2d 236, where the Court of Appeals determined, under the facts, the positive SEQRA declaration and the DEIS requirement constituted an “injury” sufficient to make the case ripe for court review without further proceedings.  The Second Department determined that facts here did not warrant the relief granted in the Rush case:

“Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine designed to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties'” … . “To determine whether a matter is ripe for judicial review, it is necessary first to determine whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution, and second to assess the hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied” … .

A court considering review of an agency determination “must determine whether an agency has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual concrete injury and whether the resolution of the dispute requires any fact-finding, for [e]ven if an administrative action is final, however, it will still be “inappropriate” for judicial review and, hence, unripe, if the determination of the legal controversy involves the resolution of factual issues'” … . “The position taken by an agency is not definitive and the injury is not actual or concrete if the injury purportedly inflicted by the agency could be prevented, significantly ameliorated, or rendered moot by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party” … . * * *

“An action taken by an agency pursuant to SEQRA may be challenged only when such action is final” … . Traditionally, a “SEQRA determination [has] usually [been] considered to be a preliminary step in the decision-making process and, therefore, . . . not ripe for judicial review until the decision-making process has been completed” … . Matter of Ranco Sand & Stone Corp v Vecchio, 2014 NY Slip Op 08338, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

, ,

Regulation of Use of Vacant Wetlands Constituted a Regulatory Taking—Analytical Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined that the regulations imposed on vacant wetlands constituted a regulatory taking of the land and affirmed Supreme Court’s evaluation of the taking.  The court included an in-depth discussion of the analytical criteria:

In a condemnation proceeding, a property restricted by wetlands regulations is valued pursuant to the restrictions imposed by the wetlands regulations at the time of the taking, unless the claimant can demonstrate a reasonable probability that “a higher or more productive use of the property would have been available by reason of a legislative rezoning or a judicial declaration of invalidity of the use restriction” … . “A landowner who claims that land regulation has effected a taking of his [or her] property bears the heavy burden of overcoming the presumption of constitutionality that attaches to the regulation and of proving every element of his [or her] claim beyond a reasonable doubt” … .

Generally, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking … . Analysis of whether nonpossessory governmental regulation of property has gone so far as to constitute a taking involves factual inquires in which three factors of particular significance have been identified: (1) “[t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant”; (2) “the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations”; and (3) “the character of the governmental action” … .

As to the first factor, “the property owner must show by dollars and cents’ evidence that under no use permitted by the regulation under attack would the properties be capable of producing a reasonable return; the economic value, or all but a bare residue of the economic value, of the parcels must have been destroyed by the regulations at issue” … . Accordingly, standing alone, a serious and significant diminution of property value will typically not be deemed to constitute a regulatory taking … . * * *

Although the claimants admit that, at trial, they did not set forth any evidence with respect to the second factor …, under the circumstances presented here, such an omission is not fatal to their claim, especially upon consideration of the third factor. Under the third factor, generally, a property owner “must establish that the regulation attacked so restricts his [or her] property that he [or she] is precluded from using it for any purpose for which it is reasonably adapted” … . Matter of New Cr Bluebelt, Phase 4, 2014 NY Slip OP 08029, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

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