Horn v. International Business Machines Corp.
| Decision Date | 26 August 1985 |
| Citation | 110 A.D.2d 87,493 N.Y.S.2d 184 |
| Parties | Steve HORN, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C., New York City (Daniel Riesel and Mark A. Chertok, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Wendels, Marx, Davies & Ives, New York City (Raymond T. Munsell and Todd B. Sollis, New York City, of counsel), for respondent International Business Machines Corp.
Lawrence Dittelman, Town Atty., Chappaqua, for respondents the Town of New Castle and the Town Board of the Town of New Castle.
Meighan & Necarsulmer, Mamaroneck (Garrison R. Corwin, Jr., Mamaroneck, of counsel), for the Coalition of Concerned Neighborhood Association, Inc., amicus curiae.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and NIEHOFF, RUBIN and B. LAWRENCE, JJ.
The instant declaratory judgment action involves a series of challenges to the rezoning and subdivision of several parcels of land located in the Town of New Castle, which permit the construction on that property of a research center by defendant International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). The primary issue presented on this appeal is whether the draft and final environmental impact statements prepared and submitted by IBM in conjunction with its rezoning application failed to comply with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA, ECL art. 8). Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the proceedings herein were in compliance with SEQRA.
Sometime prior to July 1982, IBM acquired options to purchase several parcels of real property totaling in excess of 185 acres, located in the western end of the Town of New Castle (hereinafter the IBM site). The principal parcel of the assembled IBM site was the former location of the Hudson Hills Golf Course which had been on the market for several years. The entire IBM site was zoned for residential use with a minimum required acreage of two acres. IBM intended to develop the site by constructing a research office center upon it. Plaintiff's residence is located on a parcel of approximately 85 acres which is contiguous to a portion of the western boundary of the IBM site.
In July 1982 IBM first approached town officials for the purpose of reviewing the procedures necessary to rezone the IBM site for possible office development. IBM was advised at that time to prepare a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) for submission to the town in support of its rezoning application. The following month, IBM made a formal presentation to the town officials at IBM's research office center located in Yorktown, approximately 1 1/2 miles from the proposed New Castle IBM site. During the presentation, aerial photographs of the site and slides of other IBM buildings were displayed. IBM indicated that the proposed New Castle facility would be similar in function to the Yorktown center. A similar presentation was made to several New Castle residents at IBM's invitation, in September 1982.
In November 1982, IBM formally petitioned the town to rezone the IBM site to a zoning classification which would permit the construction of a research office center, planned for 800,000 square feet of space and approximately 1,600 to 1,800 employees. In addition thereto, IBM submitted a DGEIS.
IBM's zoning application and DGEIS were formally received and filed by the town board on November 23, 1982. The town board declared itself to be the "lead agency" in connection with the proposed project, pursuant to SEQRA regulations (see, 6 NYCRR 617.2[r] ) and IBM's rezoning request was categorized as a "Type I [SEQRA] action" (see, 6 NYCRR 617.2[z] ). The town board also made a "Positive Declaration" that the proposed action would have a significant effect on the environment thereby necessitating a full environmental review before the board could vote on the rezoning request. IBM was then asked to have representatives attend the town board hearing on December 14, 1982, to make a formal presentation.
At the December 14, 1982, meeting of the town board, IBM's architectural and engineering consultants as well as IBM's attorney made presentations concerning the proposed project. Thereafter, IBM was questioned by members of the town board on issues concerning the visual impact of the proposed project, potential traffic problems and related matters. At the conclusion of the meeting, the town board accepted the DGEIS and ordered that it be circulated to all appropriate agencies.
On December 21, 1982, IBM submitted an application to the town planning board for approval of preliminary subdivision of the IBM site into two parcels, one of approximately 185 acres, which was the subject of the proposed rezoning, and a parcel of about 6 acres which was not to be rezoned. In accordance with the objective of SEQRA that the environmental review process be integrated into existing agency review to the maximum degree feasible (see, ECL 8-0107), the town board, at its regular meeting on January 11, 1983, scheduled a joint meeting with the planning board to be held on February 7, 1983. The dual purposes of the joint meeting were to first conduct a public hearing before the town board on the DGEIS and the rezoning request, and second, to conduct a public hearing before the planning board regarding consideration of IBM's subdivision request and a related amendment to the town plan map.
At the joint meeting, the IBM representative again made a presentation regarding the proposed development. Following the presentation, members of both boards, as well as several residents who attended the meeting, raised questions and comments on a variety of issues including potential traffic and sewage problems, visual impact and archeological concerns, the use of mechanical equipment on the roof of the proposed facility, and the type of research to be conducted therein. At the conclusion of the hearing, it was announced that further comments from the public would be accepted by the town board until February 28, 1983. This deadline was subsequently extended by the town board.
Thereafter, at its regular meeting on February 15, 1983, the planning board determined that the IBM subdivision proposal was in accordance with the long-range planning policies for research and office business development as set forth in the town plan and that the proposed site complied with the planning standards established in that plan. Accordingly, the planning board voted to amend the town plan map to reclassify the IBM site from the then "Semi-Public Recreation" and "Low Density Residence" categories to the "Office Building" category and to approve IBM's subdivision application. The planning board based its determination on advice requested and received from its planning consultant and the town engineer, its review of the DGEIS, as well as the comments and reports subsequently considered in connection therewith.
The town board conducted two additional meetings to review and consider public comment on IBM's rezoning request. These meetings were held on March 8 and 22, 1983. At the conclusion of the March 22 hearing, the board voted to close the public comment period as to the DGEIS and directed IBM to prepare a final generic environmental impact statement (FGEIS). At a subsequent meeting held on April 12, 1983, the town board scheduled a public hearing for May 16, 1983, to review the FGEIS which IBM was asked to file by May 5, 1983. When area residents requested more time to respond, IBM agreed to deliver the FGEIS by April 30, 1983. The FGEIS was filed on April 29, 1983.
The May 16, 1983, public hearing opened with a presentation by IBM which consisted of an outline of the proposed project and a review of the FGEIS. IBM underscored the fact that several new studies were appended to the FGEIS which were not included in the DGEIS. These studies included (1) a survey of archeological sites located on the parcel, (2) an assessment of air quality at the Yorktown IBM center, (3) a supplemental traffic study, and (4) a study by a real estate firm concluding that the Yorktown IBM center had no adverse impact on property values in neighboring areas.
Several area residents and representatives of local not-for-profit organizations attended the meeting and voiced objections to the proposed development. Most of the objections concerned the potential impact of the proposed project on the rural environment of the town, increase in traffic and possible increases in noise levels. In addition, an environmental planner retained by plaintiff testified in opposition to IBM's proposal, claiming, in essence, that the FGEIS was not in compliance with relevant SEQRA requirements. Among the objections raised by the planner were the claims that the FGEIS failed to adequately discuss alternative sites within the town for the proposed development and that it did not sufficiently consider the impact of the zoning change on the entire New Castle community.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the town board determined that it required further information on traffic projections, revenue projections and the tax impact of the proposed project. In addition, the board requested an addendum to the FGEIS to address the possibility of a reduction in the ultimate allowable size of the building.
In response to the town board's requests for further information, IBM submitted two letters from its engineer and site planner, dated May 20 and May 21, 1983, respectively, as addenda to its FGEIS. At its next scheduled meeting on May 24, 1983, the town board accepted the FGEIS and its addenda as complete, and ordered that the FGEIS as so supplemented be circulated for comment. The town board also voted to accept written public comments on the FGEIS until June 17, 1983. Final determination of IBM's rezoning application was deferred until June 22, 1983.
On June 21, 1983, the town...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. Town of Guilderland
...over which it has no control, which might not be for sale, or which are not economically feasible" ( Horn v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 110 A.D.2d 87, 95–96, 493 N.Y.S.2d 184 [1985], lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 602, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 490 N.E.2d 556 [1986] ). It is through this lens that we c......
-
E.F.S. Ventures Corp. v. Foster
...Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 416, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 494 N.E.2d 429, supra; Horn v. International Business Machs. Corp., 110 A.D.2d 87, 493 N.Y.S.2d 184, appeal denied 67 N.Y.2d 602, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 490 N.E.2d 556). If the record establishes that the responsi......
-
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
...[public utility must consider alternative sites for location of nuclear power plant]; see generally Horn v. Intern. Business Machines Corp. (1985) 110 A.D.2d 87, 493 N.Y.S.2d 184, 190-191.) Nevertheless, there may be cases involving proposed development by a private entity in which the cons......
-
Williamsburg Around the Bridge Block Ass'n v. Giuliani
...397). Further, it has been held that literal compliance with SEQRA's procedural requirements is mandated (Horn v. International Business Machs., 110 A.D.2d 87, 92, 493 N.Y.S.2d 184, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 602, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 490 N.E.2d 556; Glen Head-Glenwood Landing Civic Council, Inc. v......
-
Seeking the spirit of SEQRA from beneath the paperwork.
...to ensure payment). (222) Caffry Interview, supra note 14. (223) Caffry, Substantive Reach, supra note 154, at 410. Cf. Horn v. IBM, 493 N.Y.S.2d 184, 190-91 (App. Div. 1985) (supporting the point that since private developers do not have (224) Caffry Interview, supra note 14. (225) Id. (22......
-
Reflections on environmental justice.
...(requiring plaintiffs to use an "`appropriate measure'" to demonstrate a disparate impact). (28) Horn v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 493 N.Y.S.2d 184 (App. Div. (29) N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 6, [section] 617.9 (2001). (30) 520 N.E.2d 517 (N.Y. 1988). * Michael B. Gerrard, is a pa......