Hubbard v. Town of Sand Lake

• Decision Date: 26 January 1995
• Citation: 622 N.Y.S.2d 126,211 A.D.2d 1005
• Parties: In the Matter of Warren H. HUBBARD Sr., Petitioner, v. TOWN OF SAND LAKE, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 126

622 N.Y.S.2d 126

211 A.D.2d 1005

In the Matter of Warren H. HUBBARD Sr., Petitioner, v. TOWN OF SAND LAKE, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Jan. 26, 1995.

Kingsley & Towne, P.C. (James T. Towne Jr., of counsel), Albany, for petitioner.

Bond, Schoeneck & King (Carl Rosenbloom, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and CREW, CASEY, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.

CREW, Justice.

Proceeding initiated in this court pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a determination of respondent which condemned a portion of petitioner's land upon which respondent's landfill is located.

Respondent leased from petitioner's predecessor-in-interest certain real property located on Chamberlain Hill Road in the Town of Sand Lake, Rensselaer County, for use as a sanitary landfill. The lease was to expire on June 30, 1994. In April 1993, the State Department of Environmental Conservation ordered the closure of the landfill and directed respondent to monitor and maintain the property for 30 years. To ensure compliance with that order, respondent attempted to acquire a long-term interest in petitioner's property. Because the parties were unable to negotiate an acceptable agreement, respondent sought to acquire the property by eminent domain.

Notice of a public hearing on the proposed acquisition was given and a hearing was held at which written and oral comments from the public were received. Following the hearing, respondent's board issued its determination and findings, concluding that it was in the public interest to acquire the property to ensure compliance with the aforesaid order. Petitioner has initiated this proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 seeking annulment of respondent's determination.

We reject each of petitioner's contentions save the assertion that respondent's determination and findings were not made in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (hereinafter SEQRA) (ECL art 8) (see, EDPL 207[C][3]. Pursuant to SEQRA, a condemnor may issue a negative declaration, obviating the need for an environmental impact statement, if it "identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a 'hard look' at them, and made a 'reasoned elaboration' of the basis for [its] determination" (Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v. City of New York, 68 N.Y.2d 359, 363-364, 509 N.Y.S.2d 499, 502 N.E.2d 176). While a review of the record here reveals that respondent undertook studies to evaluate the impacts to...