Hart v. Town of Guilderland

• Decision Date: 08 July 2021
• Docket Number: 532570
• Citation: 151 N.Y.S.3d 700,196 A.D.3d 900
• Parties: In the Matter of Thomas HART et al., Respondents, v. TOWN OF GUILDERLAND et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

196 A.D.3d 900

151 N.Y.S.3d 700

In the Matter of Thomas HART et al., Respondents,

v.TOWN OF GUILDERLAND et al., Appellants.

532570

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

Calendar Date: May 25, 2021

Decided and Entered: July 8, 2021

Peter G. Barber, Guilderland, for Town of Guilderland and others, appellants.

Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany (Robert S. Rosborough IV of counsel) and Sive, Paget & Riesel, PC, New York City (David Paget of counsel), for Pyramid Management Group, LLC and others, appellants.

James Bacon, New Paltz, for respondents.

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pritzker, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered November 23, 2020 in Albany County, which granted petitioners' application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, to, among other things, annul a determination of respondent Planning Board of the Town of Guilderland granting the requests of respondent Rapp Road Development, LLC for subdivision and site plan approval.

Respondent Pyramid Management Group, LLC (hereinafter Pyramid) owns and operates a retail shopping mall (hereinafter Crossgates Mall) located in the Town of Guilderland, Albany County. Between 2015 and 2016, respondent Town of Guilderland (hereinafter the Town) commissioned the Westmere Corridor Study (hereinafter the Study) to develop a neighborhood plan for an area adjacent to Crossgates Mall – specifically, the section along Western Avenue between Church Road to the east and State Farm Road and New Karner Road to the west. The Study recommended the creation of compact, dense mixed-use residential/commercial development to support walkability and alternative modes of transportation in the area. In June 2018, the Town adopted Local Law No. 4 (2018) of the Town of Guilderland, later codified in the Code of the Town of Guilderland – creating the Transit Oriented Development District (hereinafter the transit district) – to implement the foregoing recommendations and incentivize "development that adequately protects nearby residential neighborhoods" (Code of the Town of Guilderland § 280–18.1[A] [hereinafter Local Law No. 4]). As relevant here, the Albany Pine Bush preserve (hereinafter the preserve) and the Rapp Road Historic District (hereinafter the historic district) are substantially contiguous to the transit district.

In November 2018, respondent Rapp Road Development, LLC (hereinafter RRD)¹ applied to respondent Planning Board of the Town of Guilderland (hereinafter the Planning Board) for subdivision and site plan approval to construct the Rapp Road Residential Development (hereinafter the residential development) within the transit district. Situated on 19.68 acres (hereinafter site 1), owned by respondent Crossgates Releaseco, LLC,² the residential development, as proposed, would consist of two five-story and three two-story buildings containing approximately 4,300 square feet of commercial space and 222 apartment units. At that time, RRD also submitted part 1 of an environmental assessment form (hereinafter EAF), pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (see ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) and its implementing regulations (see 6 NYCRR part 617).

In July 2019, the Planning Board declared itself to be the lead agency to review RRD's application under SEQRA. In August 2019, the Planning Board, upon determining that the residential development – if considered in connection with certain additional properties owned by Pyramid, RRD and Crossgates Releaseco (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Pyramid respondents) and other affiliated entities – may have a significant cumulative adverse effect on the environment, issued a positive declaration, triggering preparation of an environmental impact statement (hereinafter EIS). Therein, the Planning Board briefly described the project, consisting of the residential development on site 1, a proposed 160,000 square foot retail site and fueling facility (hereinafter site 2) and a third development area with no existing plans for development (hereinafter site 3) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the project). Then, pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.8, the Planning Board initiated public scoping for a draft EIS (hereinafter DEIS) and, in October 2019, accepted the final scoping outline, which identified the project's potentially significant adverse impacts.

In November 2019, Crossgates Releaseco submitted a special use permit application to respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Guilderland (hereinafter the ZBA) for the development and operation of site 2 – which, more specifically, was proposed to become a Costco Wholesale retail facility (hereinafter the Costco store) situated on 16.5 acres in the transit district, located to the east of the intersection of Crossgates Mall Road and Western Avenue. According to the special use permit application, the development of site 2 would also include the construction of a Costco fueling facility and a total of 700 parking spaces.

In January 2020, the Pyramid respondents prepared and submitted the DEIS. In a February 2020 resolution, the Planning Board accepted the DEIS and issued a notice of completion. The Planning Board held a public hearing in May 2020 and received over 600 written comments. In July 2020, the Pyramid respondents submitted the final EIS (hereinafter FEIS), which, by resolution, the Planning Board accepted. In August 2020, the Planning Board issued a findings statement (hereinafter the August 2020 findings statement) authorizing the project.

Petitioners Thomas Hart, Lisa Hart, Kevin McDonald and Sarah McDonald are Guilderland residents that reside in the Westmere Terrace neighborhood. Petitioner 1667 Western Avenue, LLC owns real property located at 1667 Western Avenue and petitioner Red–Kap Sales, Inc. is a gasoline distributor that operates a gas station thereon. In September 2020, petitioners commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, seeking, among other things, to annul the Planning Board's adoption of the August 2020 findings statement as arbitrary and capricious. The Town, the Planning Board and the ZBA (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Town respondents) answered, opposing all relief requested, and moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition. The Pyramid respondents also answered, opposing all requested relief and seeking dismissal of the petition. Thereafter, in October 2020, the Planning Board, in connection with the residential development, issued a site plan approval findings statement and granted site plan approval. The petition was subsequently amended to also challenge the Planning Board's approval of the residential development's site plan. The Town respondents and the Pyramid respondents answered, seeking dismissal of the amended petition. In November 2020, Supreme Court granted the amended petition, finding that the Planning Board's acceptance of the DEIS and FEIS and its issuance of the August 2020 findings statement – as well as its issuance of the October 2020 site 1 findings statement and site 1 plan approval – procedurally and substantively violated SEQRA, rendering the challenged administrative actions arbitrary and capricious, null and void. Respondents appeal.

Respondents first contend that Supreme Court erred by vacating the DEIS, FEIS, the August 2020 findings statement and site plan approval based upon petitioners' challenge to the Planning Board declaring itself as lead agency. Inasmuch as "[a] challenge [to lead agency status] may only be commenced by another involved agency" ( Matter of King v. County of Saratoga Indus. Dev. Agency, 208 A.D.2d 194, 201, 622 N.Y.S.2d 339 [1995] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 809, 628 N.Y.S.2d 52, 651 N.E.2d 920 [1995] ; see Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Poquott v. Cahill, 11 A.D.3d 536, 539, 782 N.Y.S.2d 823 [2004], lv dismissed and denied 5 N.Y.3d 819, 803 N.Y.S.2d 26, 836 N.E.2d 1149 [2005] ), we agree that petitioners lack standing to raise this issue;³ thus, Supreme Court erred in vacating the DEIS, FEIS, the August 2020 findings statement and site plan approval on this basis.

Next, respondents argue that Supreme Court erred in determining that the Planning Board failed to (1) take a hard look at potential impacts to avian populations, (2) examine visual impacts on the historic district and perform a viewshed analysis, (3) evaluate the project's consistency with zoning and community character, and (4) consider reduced-sized alternatives to the project and a residential alternative for site 2.⁴ "In compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of SEQRA and all applicable regulations, a lead agency must prepare a DEIS and FEIS to analyze the environmental impact and any unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the project under review" ( Matter of Keil v. Greenway Heritage Conservancy for the Hudson Riv. Val., Inc., 184 A.D.3d 1048, 1050–1051, 126 N.Y.S.3d 772 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "In assessing compliance with the substantive mandates of SEQRA, we are tasked with reviewing the record to determine whether the ... lead agency[ ] ‘identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination’ " ( Matter of Adirondack Historical Assn. v. Village of Lake Placid/Lake Placid Vil., Inc., 161 A.D.3d 1256, 1258, 75 N.Y.S.3d 677 [2018], quoting 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] ). "Literal compliance with both the letter and spirit of SEQRA is required and substantial compliance will not suffice" ( Matter of Adirondack Historical Assn. v. Village of Lake Placid/Lake Placid Vil., Inc., 161 A.D.3d at 1258–1259, 75...