Peachin v. City of Oneonta

• Decision Date: 06 May 2021
• Docket Number: 531566
• Citation: 149 N.Y.S.3d 258,194 A.D.3d 1172
• Parties: In the Matter of Johna M. PEACHIN et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF ONEONTA et al., Respondents, et al., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

194 A.D.3d 1172
149 N.Y.S.3d 258

In the Matter of Johna M. PEACHIN et al., Appellants,
v.
CITY OF ONEONTA et al., Respondents, et al., Respondent.

531566

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

Calendar Date: March 18, 2021
Decided and Entered: May 6, 2021

149 N.Y.S.3d 260

Douglas H. Zamelis, Cooperstown, for appellants.

Kehoe & Merzig, PC, Oneonta (David S. Merzig of counsel), for City of Oneonta and others, respondents.

Charles V. Martabano, Katonah, for Parkview Development & Construction, LLC, respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Lynch, J.

194 A.D.3d 1172

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), entered June 17, 2020 in Otsego County, which dismissed petitioners' application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, to review, among other things, a determination of respondent City of Oneonta Planning Commission granting site plan approval to respondent Parkview Development & Construction, LLC.

In July 2019, respondent Parkview Development & Construction, LLC presented a proposal to respondent City of Oneonta Planning Commission to construct a 73,500 square foot, four-story, mixed use building in the City of Oneonta, Otsego County. The proposal included the construction of 64 affordable-housing apartment units designed to attract local artists and middle-income residents. It also included the construction of an educational facility developed in conjunction with respondent Hartwick College, which would provide testing, product development and support resources for local grain industry professionals. The project was proposed for the site of a 2.12–acre municipal parking lot, with the project design covering less than one acre.

Following the submission of a State Environmental Quality Review Act (see ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) full environmental assessment form, with Part 1 completed, the Planning Commission, as lead agency, designated the project a type I action insofar as it was adjacent to a nationally listed historic property. The proposal was reviewed at public meetings before

194 A.D.3d 1173

the Planning Commission and, in October 2019, respondent Stephen Yerly – the City's Code Enforcement Officer (hereinafter CEO) – submitted a memorandum to the Planning Commission confirming that the proposal was in compliance with the parking requirements set forth in the City of Oneonta Zoning Ordinance (hereinafter the zoning code). Petitioners attempted to appeal the CEO's determination to respondent Oneonta Zoning Board of Appeals, but the City attorney informed petitioners that no appeal could be taken because they had neither "applied for, [n]or been denied" a permit from the Code Enforcement Office.

149 N.Y.S.3d 261

On November 6, 2019, the Planning Commission issued a negative declaration of environmental significance and a resolution granting site plan approval to Parkview. Although the Planning Commission recognized that the development would result in a loss of 84 parking spaces and that the zoning code required more than 90 additional off-street parking spaces to accommodate the use, it decided – as authorized under the zoning code – to waive the parking requirements thereof, concluding that the City had sufficient reserve parking to accommodate the development. The next day, the City's Mayor signed a purchase and sale agreement conveying the parking lot to Parkview to begin construction.

Petitioners – individuals who own local businesses near the project site – commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and action for declaratory judgment seeking, among other things, to annul the negative SEQRA declaration and the resolution granting site plan approval to Parkview. Petitioners asserted, among other things, that (1) the Planning Commission failed to take a hard look at the project's parking impacts as required by SEQRA, (2) the sale of the parking lot to Parkview violated the public trust doctrine, (3) the CEO's October 2019 determination that the project was "in compliance with the parking requirements" set forth in the zoning code was arbitrary and capricious, and (4) site plan approval should not have been granted because the zoning code prohibits grade level dwelling units.

Following joinder of issue,¹ Supreme Court dismissed the petition/complaint. As relevant here, the court concluded that petitioners lacked standing to challenge the Planning Commission's actions insofar as their claim that the project would cause economic harm to their businesses by creating a parking

194 A.D.3d 1174

shortage did not constitute a cognizable injury-in-fact.² In any event, Supreme Court determined that the Planning Commission undertook the requisite hard look at the parking impacts associated with the project, and the City's conveyance of the parking lot to Parkview did not violate the public trust doctrine. The court rejected petitioners' remaining contentions as unavailing. Petitioners appeal.

Contrary to petitioners' contention, Supreme Court properly determined that they lack standing to challenge the negative SEQRA declaration. To establish standing in the SEQRA context, petitioners were "obliged to establish both an injury-in-fact and that the asserted injury [was] within the zone of interests sought to be protected by [SEQRA]" ( Matter of Village of Woodbury v. Seggos, 154 A.D.3d 1256, 1258, 65 N.Y.S.3d 76 [2017] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see Matter of Town of Waterford v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 187 A.D.3d 1437, 1439, 134 N.Y.S.3d 545 [2020] ; Matter of Village of Canajoharie v. Planning Bd. of Town of Florida, 63 A.D.3d 1498, 1501, 882 N.Y.S.2d 526 [2009] ). The injury must be "environmental and not solely economic in nature" ( Matter of Widewaters Rte. 11 Potsdam Co., LLC v. Town of Potsdam, 51 A.D.3d 1292, 1294, 858 N.Y.S.2d 820 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see

149 N.Y.S.3d 262

Matter of Association for a Better Long Is., Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 23 N.Y.3d 1, 9, 988 N.Y.S.2d 115, 11 N.E.3d 188 [2014] ), and petitioners "must not only allege, but if the issue is disputed must prove, that their injury is real and different from the injury most members of the public face" ( Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany, 13 N.Y.3d 297, 306, 890 N.Y.S.2d 405, 918 N.E.2d 917 [2009] ; see Matter of Hohman v. Town of Poestenkill, 179 A.D.3d 1172, 1175, 115 N.Y.S.3d 572 [2020] ). Claims of environmental injury that are based upon mere "conjecture or speculation" will not suffice ( Matter of Village of Woodbury v. Seggos, 154 A.D.3d at 1258, 65 N.Y.S.3d 76 [internal quotation...