Matter of Reed v. Village of Philmont Planning Board

• Decision Date: 16 November 2006
• Docket Number: 99510.
• Citation: 825 N.Y.S.2d 284,2006 NY Slip Op 08320,34 A.D.3d 1034
• Parties: In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER H. REED et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF PHILMONT PLANNING BOARD et al., Respondents-Appellants, and PHILMONT VENTURES, LLC, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

34 A.D.3d 1034

825 N.Y.S.2d 284

2006 NY Slip Op 08320

In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER H. REED et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF PHILMONT PLANNING BOARD et al., Respondents-Appellants, and PHILMONT VENTURES, LLC, et al., Respondents.

99510.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

Decided November 16, 2006.

Cross appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hummel, J.), entered October 6, 2005 in Columbia County, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Village of Philmont Planning Board granting approval to further develop certain real property.

Crew III, J.

In 1988, respondent Village of Philmont Board of Trustees (hereinafter Village Board) issued a negative declaration for purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) for the Summit Street Project, a residential development located on a 56.2-acre parcel in the Village of Philmont, Columbia County. Shortly thereafter, the Village adopted a comprehensive zoning code that, in part, was in conflict with the proposed project. Litigation ensued and, ultimately, the developer and the Village entered into a settlement agreement in 1991, pursuant to the terms of which the developer agreed to, among other things, grant the Village a conservation easement with respect to 10.92 acres of land on the property. Phase I of the project then began and 14 new homes were completed.

Years passed and, in 2004, respondent Philmont Ventures, LLC (hereinafter Ventures), the developer's successor in interest, submitted an application to respondent Village of Philmont Planning Board for approval of its plan to commence phase II of the project. Ventures acknowledged that it must comply with certain regulations concerning storm water treatment and, to that end, proposed installing three storm water detention ponds that, of necessity, had to be located within the conservation easement. Accordingly, Ventures also approached the Village Board to determine whether it would be willing to amend the conservation easement to permit the installation of the detention ponds. A lengthy examination of Ventures' respective applications ensued, during the course of which both the phase II application and the application to amend the conservation easement were subjected to a coordinated review by the Planning Board and the Village Board (hereinafter collectively referred to as respondents). Following public hearings, review of the full environmental assessment form (hereinafter EAF) and numerous responses by Ventures' engineering firm, negative declarations were issued, the phase II application was granted preliminary approval and the conservation easement was amended to allow for the construction of two small detention ponds therein.

Petitioners, all of whom own property in the Village, thereafter commenced this proceeding seeking to, among other things, annul the underlying negative declarations, enjoin respondents from granting approval or amending the conservation easement prior to complying with SEQRA and declaring that a full environmental impact statement was required. Although Supreme Court found that petitioners had standing to commence this proceeding, it...