IN THE MATTER OF LAWRENCE MERSON, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. DONALD F. MCNALLY,
ET AL., RESPONDENTS, PHILIPSTOWN INDUS. PARK, INC., INTERVENOR-APPELLANT.
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF PHILIPSTOWN INDUS. PARK, INC., APPELLANT, v. TOWN BD. OF
TOWN OF PHILIPS- TOWN, NEW YORK, &C., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
90 N.Y.2d 742, 688 N.E.2d 479, 665 N.Y.S.2d 605 (1997).
October 30, 1997
2 No. 171,173
(97 NY Int. 0185)
Decided October 30, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
No. 171:
Robert J. Alessi, for appellant.
Robert C. Lusardi, for petitioners respondents.
New York State Builders Association, amic us curiae.
No. 173:
Robert J. Alessi, for appellant.
Richard I. Goldsand, for respondents.
SMITH, J.:
We hold that, under certain circumstances, a negative declaration may
be issued under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
even where the project a Type I action has been modified during the
initial review process to accommodate environmental concerns of the
lead agency and other interested parties.
In the first case, Matter of Merson v McNally, we conclude that the
modifications made to the project in response to environmental
concerns raised during the Planning Board's review, were a legitimate
product of the process and did not implicitly convert the ultimate
determination of nonsignificance into an improperly conditioned
negative declaration. Thus, the order of the Appellate Division
annulling the negative declaration should be reversed. Since that
decision was relied upon by the Appellate Division to dismiss the
SNIPPETS:
ET AL., RESPONDENTS, PHILIPSTOWN INDUS.
PARK, INC., INTERVENOR-APPELLANT.
IN THE MATTER OF PHILIPSTOWN INDUS.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
We hold that, under certain circumstances, a negative declaration may be issued under the
In the first case, Matter of Merson v McNally, we conclude that the modifications made to the
Since that decision was relied upon by the Appellate Division to dismiss the project
Philipstown Industrial Park, Inc. (PIP) is the owner of over 80 acres of real property
about 9.8 acres would again be subject to surface mining which would consist of "sizing" of
the Planning Board reviewed the permit application and declared itself the lead agency for
In response to concerns raised by the interested agencies, the Planning Board and community
The entire project proposal was reduced to a single bound volume (which included a completed
On May 18, 1993, the Planning Board received an opinion from the DEC that a determination of
It is evident that the numerous measures proposed by the intervenor in mitigation of these
PIP principally argues that the Town's mining ordinance was preempted by the New York State
This policy is effectuated, in part, through strict compliance with the review procedures
Under the procedures set forth in the DEC regulations, when a developer first submits a
While an EAF is used to determine significance or nonsignificance, the purpose of an EIS is
Applying this definition in the context of a Type I action, we prescribe a two fold inquiry
ive declaration.
On the first point, if all areas of concern involve a minimal risk to the environment, no
mitigating measures will not obviate the need for an EIS unless they clearly negate the
the Town's planning consultant articulated his concern with "ambient noise level and access
|
