Town of Woodbury v. Cnty. of Orange
| Decision Date | 26 February 2014 |
| Parties | In the Matter of TOWN OF WOODBURY, et al., petitioners/ plaintiffs-respondents-appellants, et al., petitioner/ plaintiff-respondent, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al., respondents/defendants-respondents, Village of Kiryas Joel, respondent/defendant-appellant-respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany, N.Y. (Michael G. Sterthous and Robert S. Rosborough IV of counsel), for respondent/defendant-appellant-respondent.
David K. Gordon and James B. Bacon, New Paltz, N.Y., for petitioners/plaintiffs-respondents-appellants.
David L. Darwin, County Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Matthew J. Nothnagle of counsel), for respondents/defendants-respondents County of Orange, Orange County Legislature, and Orange County Sewer District Number 1.
Norton & Christensen, Goshen, N.Y. (Henry N. Christensen, Jr., of counsel), for respondent/defendant-respondent Village of Chester.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review (a) a determination of the Orange County Legislature dated February 4, 2010, accepting an amended final environmental impact statement and adopting an amended findings statement in relation to a proposed sale of wastewater treatment capacity, and (b) the alleged failure of the County of Orange to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art. 8) in executing an agreement dated February 19, 2010, between the County of Orange and Orange County Sewer District No. 1, and action for a judgment declaring the February 19, 2010, agreement void, the Village of Kiryas Joel appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Nicolai, J.), dated May 2, 2012, as granted that branch of the amended petition/complaint which was to annul the agreement dated February 19, 2010, and the petitioners/plaintiffs Town of Woodbury and Village of Harriman cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order and judgment as (1) denied those branches of the amended petition/complaint which were to annul the determination dated February 4, 2010, and (2) dismissed the sixth cause of action of the amended petition/complaint as moot.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the amended petition/complaint which was to annul the agreement dated February 19, 2010, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the amended petition/complaint, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof dismissing the sixth cause of action of the amended petition/complaint as moot; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the Village of Kiryas Joel by the petitioners/plaintiffs, the sixth cause of action of the amended petition/complaint is reinstated and severed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for further proceedings on that cause of action.
The Harriman Wastewater Treatment Plant (hereinafter the HWWTP) is located in the Village of Harriman and the Town of Woodbury. The HWWTP serves Orange County Sewer District No. 1 (hereinafter the District) and portions of neighboring communities known collectively as the Moodna Communities. The HWWTP was originally constructed in 1974 with 2 million gallons per day (hereinafter mgd) of treatment capacity. It was thereafter expanded to 6 mgd, the last expansion made in 2006. The 2006 expansion was the subject of review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art. 8; hereinafter SEQRA), by the Orange County Legislature (hereinafter the Legislature) as lead agency, which accepted and adopted a final environmental impact statement (hereinafter FEIS) and findings statement for the expansion in 2001.
By letter dated January 8, 2007, Orange County (hereinafter the County) inquired of the Moodna Communities whether they were interested in purchasing expanded capacity at the HWWTP pursuant to their proportionate allocations listed in a 1978 inter-municipal agreement. The Village of Kiryas Joel (hereinafter Kiryas Joel), which is one of the communities within the District, commenced a hybrid proceeding and action seeking to enjoin the County from entering into a contract of sale of capacity to the Moodna Communities, contending that the County had failed to determine that adequate capacity existed for communities within the District. The Supreme Court agreed and enjoined the County from selling such capacity without first complying with SEQRA, among other requirements.
While the County's appeal from that determination was pending, the County and Kiryas Joel entered into a memorandumof understanding to settle that litigation and another pending litigation in which the County had challenged Kiryas Joel's SEQRA review of a pipeline project. As part of the global settlement, Kiryas Joel drafted further reports related to its pipeline SEQRA review. The County conducted a population growth study to analyze the treatment capacity needs of the District, and amended its 2001 FEIS to incorporate its conclusions. The Legislature accepted and adopted the amended FEIS and an amended findings statement on February 4, 2010.
The County and the District entered into an agreement dated February 19, 2010 (hereinafter the District Agreement), whereby they agreed to initiate specified planning procedures for a further expansion of District capacity upon the flow of the HWWTP and any other District facilities reaching 85% of design capacity. The County and the District agreed, among other things, to a timetable within which to file preliminary maps and plans for a proposed expansion with the Clerk of the Legislature, together with requests to the Legislature to set a date for a public hearing pursuant to County Law § 268 and for a resolution approving the expansion. The pending proceedings were then discontinued, and the Supreme Court's injunction vacated.
The Town of Woodbury, Village of Woodbury, and Village of Harriman (hereinafter collectively the petitioners) subsequently commenced this hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the Legislature's approval of the amended FEIS and amended findings statement and the County's alleged failure to comply with SEQRA in executing the District Agreement, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vill. of Woodbury v. Seggos
...of County of Orange v. Village of Kiryas Joel, 44 A.D.3d 765, 844 N.Y.S.2d 57 [2007] ; see also Matter of Town of Woodbury v. County of Orange, 114 A.D.3d 951, 952–953, 981 N.Y.S.2d 126 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 903, 2014 WL 4454969 [2014] ). Authorization to withdraw water from the aque......
-
Ballard v. N.Y. Safety Track LLC
...the matter to Supreme Court to conduct further proceedings relating to such cause of action (see Matter of Town of Woodbury v. County of Orange, 114 A.D.3d 951, 954, 981 N.Y.S.2d 126 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 903, 2014 WL 4454969 [2014]. Finally, we take no issue with Supreme Court's det......
-
City of Rye v. Westchester Cnty. Bd. of Legislators
...environmental impacts of the development projects on the City of Rye's community character (cf. Matter of Town of Woodbury v. County of Orange, 114 A.D.3d 951, 953, 981 N.Y.S.2d 126 ; Village of Pomona v. Town of Ramapo, 94 A.D.3d 1103, 1107, 943 N.Y.S.2d 146 ; Matter of Village of Chestnut......
-
Bistrian Land Corp. v. Lynch
...to the action seeking declaratory relief, that action could not have been summarily determined (see Matter of Town of Woodbury v. County of Orange , 114 A.D.3d 951, 954, 981 N.Y.S.2d 126 ), and the parties are not aggrieved by the Supreme Court's determination, in effect, to sever the actio......