Development

Failure to Comply with SEQRA Time Requirements Merits Mandamus Relief

Matter of Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Town Board

NYLJ 12/12/11, p. 23, col. 2

AppDiv, Second Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus, the town appealed from Supreme Court's grant of the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that failure to comply with SEQRA's time requirements justified mandamus relief.

In 2001, Costco applied for a special use permit and for site plan approval to build and operate a retail store. In 2003, the Town Board denied the petition for a special use permit, leading Costco to bring an article 78 proceeding challenging the denial. Supreme Court vacated the denial and remitted to the board for compliance with
SEQRA. In 2004, the board issued a positive declaration. The board accepted Costco's on Nov. 14, 2006. The public hearing was held on Jan. 9, 2007, and the public comment period ended on Jan. 31, 2007. Costco then made three separate submissions of final environmental impact statements (FEIS) between May 2007 and April 2009. Nevertheless, the town board has not filed an FEIS. Costco then brought this article 78 proceeding to compel the board to file an FEIS and complete environmental review. Supreme Court granted the petition.

In affirming, the Appellate Division relied on the applicable SEQRA provision requiring the board to prepare an final EIS within 45 days after close of any hearing or within 60 days after filing of the draft EIS, whichever comes later. 6 NYCRR 617.9[a][5]. In light of that provision, the court concluded that Costco was entitled to mandamus relief.

Failure to Comply with SEQRA Time Requirements Merits Mandamus Relief

Matter of Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Town Board

NYLJ 12/12/11, p. 23, col. 2

AppDiv, Second Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus, the town appealed from Supreme Court's grant of the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that failure to comply with SEQRA's time requirements justified mandamus relief.

In 2001, Costco applied for a special use permit and for site plan approval to build and operate a retail store. In 2003, the Town Board denied the petition for a special use permit, leading Costco to bring an article 78 proceeding challenging the denial. Supreme Court vacated the denial and remitted to the board for compliance with
SEQRA. In 2004, the board issued a positive declaration. The board accepted Costco's on Nov. 14, 2006. The public hearing was held on Jan. 9, 2007, and the public comment period ended on Jan. 31, 2007. Costco then made three separate submissions of final environmental impact statements (FEIS) between May 2007 and April 2009. Nevertheless, the town board has not filed an FEIS. Costco then brought this article 78 proceeding to compel the board to file an FEIS and complete environmental review. Supreme Court granted the petition.

In affirming, the Appellate Division relied on the applicable SEQRA provision requiring the board to prepare an final EIS within 45 days after close of any hearing or within 60 days after filing of the draft EIS, whichever comes later. 6 NYCRR 617.9[a][5]. In light of that provision, the court concluded that Costco was entitled to mandamus relief.