Gabrielli v. Town of New Paltz

• Decision Date: 01 March 2012
• Citation: 93 A.D.3d 923,939 N.Y.S.2d 641,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01538
• Parties: In the Matter of Robert M. GABRIELLI et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF NEW PALTZ et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01538
93 A.D.3d 923
939 N.Y.S.2d 641

In the Matter of Robert M. GABRIELLI et al., Appellants,
v.
TOWN OF NEW PALTZ et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

March 1, 2012.

Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C., Albany (Salvatore D. Ferlazzo of counsel), for appellants.

Rapport Meyers, L.L.P., Rhinebeck (George A. Rodenhausen of counsel), for respondents.

Before: MERCURE, Acting P.J., ROSE, SPAIN, MALONE JR. and McCARTHY, JJ.

McCARTHY, J.

Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Melkonian, J.), entered March 31, 2011 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioners' application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment to, among other things, review a determination of respondent Town Board of the Town of New Paltz enacting Local Law Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (2010) of the Town of New Paltz.

To ensure its continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and potentially obtain reduced insurance rates for property within its borders, respondent Town of New Paltz began drafting new zoning ordinances addressing development and construction standards in floodplains. Respondent Town Board of the Town of New Paltz declared itself lead agency and determined that adoption of the ordinances was a type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ( see ECL art. 8 [hereinafter SEQRA] ). The Town's engineer prepared an environmental assessment form (hereinafter EAF) that did not note any potential large impacts. Pursuant to General Municipal Law §§ 239–m and 239–n, the Ulster County Planning Board approved the proposed floodplain laws (Local Law Nos. 1, 2 and 3 [2010] of the Town of New Paltz). The Town Environmental Conservation Board and the Town Planning Board each recommended passage of the laws as well. After holding a public hearing and receiving comments on the floodplain laws, the Town Board issued negative declarations under SEQRA and adopted the laws. Petitioners commenced this combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment alleging, among other things, that the laws must be annulled because respondents failed to comply with SEQRA. Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Petitioners appeal.

The Town Board satisfied its obligations under SEQRA. To fulfill SEQRA's goal to “minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects” (ECL 8–0109[1] ), the lead agency must identify “the relevant areas of environmental concern, [take] a ‘hard look’ at them, and [make] a ‘reasoned elaboration’ of the basis for its determination” ( Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 417, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 494 N.E.2d 429 [1986]; accord Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast, 9 N.Y.3d 219, 231–232, ...