EDGAR KING, INDIVIDUALLY & AS SUPERVISOR OF NORTHUMBERLAND, ET AL.,
APPELLANTS, v. SARATOGA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, RESPONDENTS.
89 N.Y.2d 341, 675 N.E.2d 1185, 653 N.Y.S.2d 233 (1996).
November 21, 1996
3 No. 226 (1996 NY Int. 225)
Decided November 21, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Edward Lindner, for Appellants.
Louis A. Alexander, for Respondent.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
After several years of State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
compliance measures by respondent (the Saratoga County Board of
Supervisors) in connection with establishing a County-wide landfill,
appellants ask that respondent be returned to square one because of
improper site selection. In the unique circumstances presented we,
like the trial court and Appellate Division, refuse to order a
redundant de novo environmental review.
Faced with imminent closure of thirteen local municipal landfills, the
County of Saratoga during the 1980's began considering ways to address
its solid waste disposal needs. Eventually, the County designated
itself a "planning unit" pursuant to ECL 27-0107 and contracted with
consulting engineers Smith & Mahoney to develop a Solid Waste
Management Plan/Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
The draft Plan/GEIS, published in December 1989, provided a detailed
evaluation of alternative approaches, recommended a County-wide
landfill for the disposal of solid wastes that could not be used or
recycled, and offered criteria for determining the most suitable site.
After public hearings at three locations, comments were reviewed and
incorporated, and in October 1990 respondent adopted and the
Department of Environmental Conservation approved the final Plan/GEIS.
Applying the criteria for the landfill siting process, in November the
County issued an Interim Siting Study which identified three primary
sites for further evaluation -- two in the Town of Northumberland and
one in the Town of Moreau. Preliminary field investigations were
conducted at each site both to determine suitability for landfill
SNIPPETS:
APPELLANTS, v. SARATOGA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, RESPONDENTS.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
After several years of State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) compliance measures by
In the unique circumstances presented we, like the trial court and Appellate Division, refuse
the County designated itself a "planning unit" pursuant to ECL 27-0107 and contracted with
The draft Plan/GEIS, published in December 1989, provided a detailed evaluation of
Supreme Court dismissed the petition and the Appellate Division affirmed (Matter of Seymour v
respondent in March adopted Resolution No. 86 of 1991 designating Kobor Road in the Town of
responded with an article 78 proceeding challenging the resolution on the ground that the
While appellants' petition was pending in Supreme Court, respondent designated itself "lead
The DEIS described the characteristics of the proposed Kobor Road landfill, the history of
Respondent then circulated the DEIS, the Notice and a draft Part 360 permit application
In February 1993, respondent approved the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the site,
By the time of the decision, however, respondent had already completed its FEIS, issued its
Rather than commence a de novo environmental review, respondent in June 1993 adopted
Although respondent now attempts to relitigate the issue, the Appellate Division held in
More than twenty years ago the Legislature enacted SEQRA, and by so doing formally recognized
The mandate that agencies implement SEQRA's procedural mechanisms to the "fullest extent
Anything less than strict compliance, moreover, offers an incentive to cut corners and then
The Court refused to allow the Town simply to comply with SEQRA before proceeding with the
|
