Eadie v. Town Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush

• Decision Date: 05 July 2006
• Citation: 7 N.Y.3d 306,854 N.E.2d 464
• Parties: In the Matter of John L. EADIE et al., Appellants, v. TOWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF NORTH GREENBUSH et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 464

854 N.E.2d 464

7 N.Y.3d 306

In the Matter of John L. EADIE et al., Appellants, v. TOWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF NORTH GREENBUSH et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 5, 2006.

Law Office of Marc S. Gerstman, Albany (Marc S. Gerstman of counsel), for appellants.

Joshua A. Sabo, Town Attorney, Wynantskill, for Town Board of the Town of North Greenbush, respondent.

Mandel Clemente, P.C., North Greenbush (Linda A. Mandel Clemente of counsel), and Young, Sommer, Ward, Ritzenberg, Baker & Moore, LLC, Albany (David C. Brennan of counsel), for Planning Board of the Town of North Greenbush, respondent.

Stockli Greene & Slevin, LLP, Albany (Mary Elizabeth Slevin of counsel), for John Gallogly and another, respondents.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Caitlin J. Halligan, Daniel Smirlock, Denise Hartman, Peter H. Lehner, John J. Sipos, Lisa M. Burianek and Philip M. Bein of counsel), for State of New York, amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

R.S. SMITH, J.

The Town of North Greenbush has rezoned a large area of land to permit retail development. Petitioners seek to annul the rezoning. The case raises these three issues:

1. Did the rezoning require a three-fourths majority vote of the Town Board under Town Law § 265(1)? We hold that it did not, because the petition that sought to require a supermajority vote was not signed, as section 265(1) requires, by the owners of 20% of the land within 100 feet of the land included in the rezoning. The 100 feet must be measured from the boundary of the rezoned area, not from the boundary line of the property in which the rezoned area is located.

2. Was petitioners' challenge to the rezoning under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) timely brought? We hold that it was, because in this case the statute of limitations ran from the adoption of the rezoning, not from the earlier completion of the SEQRA process.

3. Did the Town comply with SEQRA? We hold that it did.

Facts and Procedural History

In September 2003, the Town released a draft generic environmental impact statement (DGEIS), prepared pursuant to SEQRA to address a proposed area-wide rezoning of many parcels of land located near the intersection of routes 4 and 43. The rezoning had been requested by landowners, including John and Thomas Gallogly, who wanted to build retail stores on their property. Retail development was not permitted by the then-existing zoning.

The DGEIS is a document of more than 200 pages with lengthy appendices. One section of the document discusses traffic; that section says that an "access management plan" will be needed, but describes only in general terms what the plan will contain. "Access management," as we understand it from the parties' presentations, involves planning for the entry and exit of traffic on major roads in such a way as to keep interference with traffic flow to a minimum.

After public hearings and written comments, the Town adopted a final generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) on March 25, 2004. Responding to comments urging the development of an access management plan, the Town included such a plan in the final GEIS, proposing to construct several access roads and other improvements, and describing proposed allocations of costs and sources of funding for this construction. The final GEIS did not specify the timing of the proposed improvements.

After another comment period, the Town took the last step in the SEQRA process by adopting a findings statement on April 28, 2004. The findings statement approved a project that included the rezoning of a number of parcels. It described proposed "mitigation measures," including those contained in its access management plan, but said that "[t]he timing of the improvements is beyond the scope of this GEIS," noting that "the Town cannot logistically or accurately determine at this time which parcels will be developed and when."

On May 4, 2004, the Town Board held a public hearing on the proposed zoning change at which petitioners, opponents of the change, presented a protest petition pursuant to Town Law § 265(1). The petition, if effective, would have required a three-quarters vote of the Town Board to approve the rezoning. Petitioners claim the protest was effective, because it was signed by owners of more than 20% of the land located within 100 feet of the parcels affected by the rezoning, as shown by the Town's tax map. However, not all the land contained in the tax map parcels was affected by the rezoning; some of the land owned by the Galloglys was not rezoned. A "buffer zone" between 200 and 400 feet wide was left between the rezoned portion of the Galloglys' property and the property line. Measuring from the boundary of the rezoned area, the Town determined that petitioners did not own 20% of the land within 100 feet, and that their protest petition was therefore invalid. On May 13, 2004, the Town Board passed the rezoning by a vote of three to two.

On September 10, 2004 — more than four months after the SEQRA process was completed, but less than four months after the rezoning was enacted — petitioners began this proceeding under CPLR article 78 against the Town Board, the Planning Board of the Town and the Galloglys. The petition contained five causes of action, one alleging that the rezoning was not lawfully enacted because it required a supermajority vote and four under SEQRA, two of which have now been abandoned. The remaining SEQRA claims were related to the access management plan in the GEIS. Petitioners asserted that the Town's proposed mitigation efforts were "vague [and] discretionary" and therefore inadequate and that its "proposed changes to the transportation infrastructure" required preparation of a supplemental GEIS.

Supreme Court denied motions to dismiss the proceedings on statute of limitations and necessary-party grounds, and granted petitioners a preliminary injunction. In a later order, Supreme Court granted the article 78 petition and annulled the rezoning on the basis of petitioners' Town Law § 265(1) claim. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the petition, holding that the protest petition was insufficient under Town Law § 265(1)(b); that petitioners' SEQRA claims were barred by the statute of limitations; and that the SEQRA claims in any event lacked merit. We now affirm the Appellate Division's order, although we disagree with its statute of limitations holding, the first of its two alternative grounds for dismissing the SEQRA claims.

Discussion

I

Under Town Law § 265(1), zoning regulations may be amended "by a simple majority vote of the town board, except that any such amendment shall require the approval of at least three-fourths of the members of the town board" in certain circumstances. Petitioners here rely on Town Law § 265(1)(b), which requires a supermajority vote where the zoning change is the subject of a written protest presented to the Town Board and signed by "the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of land immediately adjacent to that land included in such proposed change, extending one hundred feet therefrom."

We conclude, as did the Appellate Division, that the "one hundred feet" must be measured from the boundary of the rezoned area, not the parcel of which the rezoned area is a part. The language of the statute, on its face, points to that result: "land included in such proposed change" can hardly be read to refer to land to which the proposed zoning change is inapplicable.

Fairness and predictability point in the same direction. The interpretation we adopt is fair, because it makes the power to require a supermajority vote dependent on the distance of one's property from land that will actually be affected by the change. Petitioners complain that this allows landowners who obtain rezoning to insulate themselves against protest petitions by "buffer zoning" — i.e., leaving the zoning of a strip of property unchanged, as occurred with the Galloglys' property here. But we see nothing wrong with this. The whole point of the "one hundred feet" requirement is that, where a buffer of that distance or more exists, neighbors beyond the buffer zone are not entitled to force a supermajority vote. If we adopted petitioners' interpretation, such a vote could be compelled by property owners within 100 feet of the boundary of even a very large parcel — though these owners might be far away from any land that would be rezoned.

The interpretation we adopt also makes the operation of the statute more predictable. We see no reason why the right to compel a supermajority vote should change when the boundaries between parcels change — i.e., when parcels are merged or subdivided. Indeed, in this case, petitioners accuse the Galloglys of deeding property to themselves in order to create two parcels and invalidate the protest petition. Whether that was their original intention or not, the Galloglys now argue, and we agree, that such a reconfiguration of property lines, whether done in good faith or bad faith, should have no impact on the Town Law § 265(1)(b) issue.

Measurement from the boundary of the rezoned area — so-called "buffer zoning" — has been upheld in a New York Supreme Court case (Ryan Homes, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Mendon, 7 Misc.3d 709, 712-714, 791 N.Y.S.2d 355 [Sup.Ct., Monroe County 2005]) and in several decisions in other states: Pfaff v. City of Lakewood, 712 P.2d 1041, 1043 (Colo.App.1985); Midway Protective League v. City of Dallas, 552 S.W.2d 170, 174 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App. 1977); St. Bede's Episcopal Church v. City of Santa Fe, 85 N.M. 109, 110, 509 P.2d 876, 877 (1973); Rodgers v. Village of Menomonee Falls, 55 Wis.2d 563, 569-570, 201 N.W.2d 29, 33 (1972); and Heaton v. City of Charlotte, 277 N.C. 506, 525-528, 178 S.E.2d 352, 364-366 (1971).

Petitioners rely on Herrington v. County of Peoria, 11 Ill.App.3d 7, 295 N.E.2d 729 (1973), but that case is distinguishable; it did not involve a statute...