King v. County of Monroe
| Decision Date | 13 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 679 N.Y.S.2d 779,255 A.D.2d 1003 |
| Parties | 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 9840 Matter of Jackie KING, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MONROE and County of Monroe Industrial Development Agency, Respondents. (Appeal) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Barrett, Greisberger by Richard Dollinger, Pittsford, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Monroe County Attorney's Office by Howard Stark (Charles S. Turner, of counsel), Rochester, for Respondent-Respondent County of Monroe.
Gates & Adams (Michael A. Townsend, of counsel), Rochester, for Respondent-Respondent County of Monroe Indus. Development Agency.
Before GREEN, J.P., and PIGOTT, BALIO and FALLON, JJ.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a negative declaration issued by respondent County of Monroe (County) and subsequent action taken with respect to the development and construction of a Sportsplex on a 12-acre site on the campus of Monroe Community College in the Town of Brighton (Town) and the lease of that site to private developers. Petitioner appeals from a judgment granting the County's motion to dismiss the amended petition and denying her cross motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action of the amended petition and other relief.
Supreme Court erred in concluding that petitioner lacked standing to challenge the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process undertaken by the County. Petitioner resides directly across the street from the proposed project and has alleged that her property will suffer environmental harm as a result of the project (see, Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v. Town of Sardinia, 87 N.Y.2d 668, 687, 642 N.Y.S.2d 164, 664 N.E.2d 1226; Matter of LaDelfa v. Village of Mt. Morris, 213 A.D.2d 1024, 1025, 625 N.Y.S.2d 117).
On the merits of the petition, the court further concluded that the County properly determined that the Town was not an "involved agency" (6 NYCRR 617.2[s] ) entitled to participate in the "lead agency" process and in the SEQRA review (see, 6 NYCRR 617.6). That was error. Although the issuance of a permit for water and sewer connections is not a discretionary determination that is made based upon environmental concerns that are addressed in an environmental impact statement (see, 6 NYCRR 617.5[c][11]; Incorporated Vil. of Atl. Beach v. Gavalas, 81 N.Y.2d 322, 326, 599 N.Y.S.2d 218, 615 N.E.2d 608), the determination whether to extend or expand a sewer district does involve such concerns (cf., Matter of Kelsky v. Town Bd., 215 A.D.2d 482, 627 N.Y.S.2d 400), and the County should have identified the Town as an involved agency. However, the failure to identify the Town as an involved agency was not fatal. The County fully informed the Town of the environmental studies and reports regarding the proposed project and solicited the Town's input and comments on environmental concerns. Although the Town did not participate in the designation of the County as the lead agency, it received virtually the same notification and opportunity to participate in the SEQRA process that an involved agency would have received. The Town has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cade v. Stapf
...462, 464, 699 N.Y.S.2d 70 [1999], lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 761, 707 N.Y.S.2d 142, 728 N.E.2d 338 [2000]; Matter of King v. County of Monroe, 255 A.D.2d 1003, 1004, 679 N.Y.S.2d 779 [1998], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 801, 687 N.Y.S.2d 625, 710 N.E.2d 272 [1999] ). Furthermore, because the water tower ......
-
Giddens v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.
... ... County, Georgia, seeking to recover benefits under certain Disability Income Policies (the "Policies") ... ...
-
Wellsville Citizens for Responsible Dev., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...the circumstances of this case, any failure of the Town Board in that regard was “inconsequential” (Matter of King v. County of Monroe [Appeal No. 2], 255 A.D.2d 1003, 1004, 679 N.Y.S.2d 779, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 801, 687 N.Y.S.2d 625, 710 N.E.2d 272 ). With respect to the substantive conte......
-
Scenic Hudson, Inc. v. Town of Fishkill Town Bd.
...the DEC as an involved agency was, under the particular circumstances of this case, inconsequential (see, Matter of King v. County of Monroe, 255 A.D.2d 1003, 679 N.Y.S.2d 779; see also, Matter of Congdon v. Washington County, 130 A.D.2d 27, 31, 518 N.Y.S.2d Under these circumstances, the p......
-
Unlocking the courthouse doors: removal of the "special harm" standing requirement under SEQRA.
...the Love Canal area when the proposed redevelopment and resettlement may have had harmful effects on members); King v. County of Monroe, 679 N.Y.S.2d 779, 780 (4th Dep't App. Div. 1998) (holding that a petitioner who resided across the street from a proposed sports complex and who had alleg......