Development

Demapping of Streets Held Arbitrary

Matter of Baker v. Village of Elmsford

NYLJ 12/18/09, p. 29, col. 1

AppDiv, Second Dept.

(Opinion by Dillon, J.)

In an article 78 proceeding by landowners challenging a village's demapping of streets adjacent to their parcel, landowners appealed from Supreme Court's denial of the petition. The Appellate Division reversed and granted the petition, holding that the demapping was arbitrary and capricious, and holding that the village had not complied with SEQRA in approving the demapping resolution.

As part of a transaction in which the village purchased property from Brookfield, the village agreed to demap portions of two streets and convey the demapped property to Brookfield. Landowners own property contiguous to the streets the village intended to demap, and object to the demapping. The village board of trustees scheduled a public hearing on the proposed demapping, and prepared short form environmental assessment forms (EAFs) for each road. At the hearing, village officials testified that the demapping would have no significant environmental effect. Landowners and their counsel appeared at the public hearing, and testified that the roads were used as an egress to major highways during times of flooding. Landowners also disputed the testimony of village officials that the land had never been improved, noting that landowners had made improvements to the roads as conditions of an earlier building permit and certificate of occupancy. Landowners also submitted a revised subdivision map containing a notation that the streets at issue were “traveled and paved.” Nevertheless, at the close of the hearing, the village board adopted two resolutions discontinuing identified portions of the two roads. Landowners then brought this article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court denied the petition, and landowners appealed.

In reversing, the Appellate Division started by noting that the discontinuance of a village street requires a finding that the street has become useless as a right-of-way to the general public. The court concluded that the village's determination that the demapped streets had become useless was arbitrary and irrational in light of the undisputed assertion that the streets had been improved at the village's insistence and had been repeatedly used during times of periodic floods. The court then held that the village's negative declarations under SEQRA were merely conclusory. The court emphasized that the basis for contesting the demapping ' use of the streets during times of flooding ' had not been considered when the short form EAF was prepared. As a result, the village board never took the required “hard look” at the demapping's environmental impact. The court therefore annulled the village's resolutions.

EIS Took Hard Look at Lower East Side Rezoning

Matter of Chinese Staff and Workers Assn. v. Bloomberg

NYLJ 1/8/10, p. 26, col. 1

Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty.

(Tolub, J.)

A community group and neighborhood residents brought an article 78 proceeding directing the Department of City Planning (DCP) to prepare a new environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the impact of a proposed rezoning of the Lower East Side and East Village. The court denied the petition, holding that the EIS prepared by DCP took the requisite hard look required by the state environmental quality review act (SEQRA) and the city environmental quality review act (CEQR).

On May 2, 2008, DCP proposed zoning map and text amendments designed to guide development in the area to a scale and form more reflective of existing buildings in the area. The proposed rezoning would preserve blockfronts along narrow streets and direct future growth to area fronting on wide streets. The rezoning would result in a greater number of housing units than permissible under existing zoning, in part because of participation in the city's inclusionary housing program. Community group argued that the increased FAR permitted in some areas ' particularly along wide streets ' would result in an increase in luxury development opportunities which would be likely to displace people of color. Community group contended that the existing EIS is flawed because it fails to disclose all of the potential socioeconomic impact of the proposed rezoning. As a result, they contend that DCP's environmental review of the rezoning was inadequate, and they sought preparation of a new EIS.

In denying the petition, the court noted that the EIS prepared by DCP was guided by and based upon the CEQR technical manual. Although the court acknowledged the community group had expressed important concerns, it could not find that DCP had failed to take a “hard look” at socioeconomic issues, or that the DCP had inadequately addressed the cumulative environmental impact of the rezoning.

Demapping of Streets Held Arbitrary

Matter of Baker v. Village of Elmsford

NYLJ 12/18/09, p. 29, col. 1

AppDiv, Second Dept.

(Opinion by Dillon, J.)

In an article 78 proceeding by landowners challenging a village's demapping of streets adjacent to their parcel, landowners appealed from Supreme Court's denial of the petition. The Appellate Division reversed and granted the petition, holding that the demapping was arbitrary and capricious, and holding that the village had not complied with SEQRA in approving the demapping resolution.

As part of a transaction in which the village purchased property from Brookfield, the village agreed to demap portions of two streets and convey the demapped property to Brookfield. Landowners own property contiguous to the streets the village intended to demap, and object to the demapping. The village board of trustees scheduled a public hearing on the proposed demapping, and prepared short form environmental assessment forms (EAFs) for each road. At the hearing, village officials testified that the demapping would have no significant environmental effect. Landowners and their counsel appeared at the public hearing, and testified that the roads were used as an egress to major highways during times of flooding. Landowners also disputed the testimony of village officials that the land had never been improved, noting that landowners had made improvements to the roads as conditions of an earlier building permit and certificate of occupancy. Landowners also submitted a revised subdivision map containing a notation that the streets at issue were “traveled and paved.” Nevertheless, at the close of the hearing, the village board adopted two resolutions discontinuing identified portions of the two roads. Landowners then brought this article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court denied the petition, and landowners appealed.

In reversing, the Appellate Division started by noting that the discontinuance of a village street requires a finding that the street has become useless as a right-of-way to the general public. The court concluded that the village's determination that the demapped streets had become useless was arbitrary and irrational in light of the undisputed assertion that the streets had been improved at the village's insistence and had been repeatedly used during times of periodic floods. The court then held that the village's negative declarations under SEQRA were merely conclusory. The court emphasized that the basis for contesting the demapping ' use of the streets during times of flooding ' had not been considered when the short form EAF was prepared. As a result, the village board never took the required “hard look” at the demapping's environmental impact. The court therefore annulled the village's resolutions.

EIS Took Hard Look at Lower East Side Rezoning

Matter of Chinese Staff and Workers Assn. v. Bloomberg

NYLJ 1/8/10, p. 26, col. 1

Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty.

(Tolub, J.)

A community group and neighborhood residents brought an article 78 proceeding directing the Department of City Planning (DCP) to prepare a new environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the impact of a proposed rezoning of the Lower East Side and East Village. The court denied the petition, holding that the EIS prepared by DCP took the requisite hard look required by the state environmental quality review act (SEQRA) and the city environmental quality review act (CEQR).

On May 2, 2008, DCP proposed zoning map and text amendments designed to guide development in the area to a scale and form more reflective of existing buildings in the area. The proposed rezoning would preserve blockfronts along narrow streets and direct future growth to area fronting on wide streets. The rezoning would result in a greater number of housing units than permissible under existing zoning, in part because of participation in the city's inclusionary housing program. Community group argued that the increased FAR permitted in some areas ' particularly along wide streets ' would result in an increase in luxury development opportunities which would be likely to displace people of color. Community group contended that the existing EIS is flawed because it fails to disclose all of the potential socioeconomic impact of the proposed rezoning. As a result, they contend that DCP's environmental review of the rezoning was inadequate, and they sought preparation of a new EIS.

In denying the petition, the court noted that the EIS prepared by DCP was guided by and based upon the CEQR technical manual. Although the court acknowledged the community group had expressed important concerns, it could not find that DCP had failed to take a “hard look” at socioeconomic issues, or that the DCP had inadequately addressed the cumulative environmental impact of the rezoning.