Tri-County Taxpayers Ass'n, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Queensbury
| Decision Date | 16 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | TRI-COUNTY |
| Citation | 432 N.E.2d 592,55 N.Y.2d 41,447 N.Y.S.2d 699 |
| Parties | , 432 N.E.2d 592, 12 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,667 In the Matter ofTAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellants, v. TOWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF QUEENSBURY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Inasmuch as the Town of Queensbury had not prepared and filed an environmental impact statement with respect to the establishment of the proposed sewer district prior to the adoption by the town board of resolutions authorizing the establishment and financing of such district and to the submission of those resolutions to the voters of the proposed district at a special election, implementation of the objectives and enforcement of the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act require that such resolutions and special election be declared null and void.
This case involves consideration of the establishment of the Queensbury Sewer District No. 1 as a part of the larger Warren County sewer system. On July 24, 1979 the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopted three resolutions related to the establishment of the Queensbury Sewer District and the construction of related facilities. Resolution No. 228, in conformity with the requirements of section 209-e of the Town Law, determined that the required public hearing had been duly held and that the establishment of the proposed sewer district would be in the public interest. Resolution No. 229 approved and authorized the establishment of the district and determined the method of its financing, subject to approval of voters in the proposed district at a special election. Resolution No. 230 fixed August 17, 1979 as the date of the special election.
On August 13, 1979 petitioners (a not-for-profit corporation and individual property owners residing in the proposed sewer district), by order to show cause returnable August 15, instituted the first article 78 proceeding challenging the legality of the three resolutions on various grounds and seeking to enjoin the special election scheduled to be held on August 17. Supreme Court, Warren County, on August 16 declined to enjoin the special election which was held as scheduled and resulted in a vote of 856 in favor of the proposition and 842 opposed.
On August 24, 1979 the town made application to the Comptroller of the State of New York, pursuant to section 209-f of the Town Law, for approval of the establishment of the sewer district. On September 29 the Comptroller issued a formal order granting permission for such establishment. The previous day, September 28, the town passed Resolution Nos. 318 and 319 finally establishing the sewer district and authorizing serial bonds in the amount of $7,370,258 and revenue anticipation notes in the amount of $15,576,072 to cover construction costs. 1 On October 2, 1979 establishment of the sewer district was completed by recordation of the necessary documents in conformity with the provision of subdivision 1 of section 209-g of the Town Law.
On October 30, 1979 petitioners instituted their second article 78 proceeding seeking to have all five resolutions of the town board, as well as the special election of August 17, 1979, declared null and void as in violation of the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (Environmental Law, art. 8) (SEQRA), and in particular for failure of the town to have prepared and filed an environmental impact statement.
By decision dated March 17, 1980 and judgment entered thereon on March 28, 1979 Supreme Court considered and rejected each of petitioner's contentions and dismissed the two proceedings (except with respect to procedural matters not now pertinent).
On appeal the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the judgment of Supreme Court, holding that the establishment of the sewer district was a project which might have an environmental impact and that the actions of the town in adopting the resolutions and holding the special election on August 17, 1979 constituted "action" within the contemplation of SEQRA requiring that an environmental impact statement have been prepared and filed prior thereto. The members of the court differed, however, as to the relief which should be granted. The majority held that in the circumstances of this case petitioners were entitled to no more than a direction to the town board "to comply with ECL article 8 before taking any further steps or proceedings in connection with the construction of a sewer system in the Town of Queensbury"; the two dissenters would have declared the resolutions of the town board and the special election null and void.
We agree with the unanimous determination at the Appellate Division (and for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice T. Paul Kane) that, although the imprecision of the statutory provisions makes it difficult to identify the exact point at which an environmental impact statement must be prepared to satisfy the requirements of the statutory scheme, this point had been passed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation
...review of an agency's proposed action occur before the action is undertaken. See, e.g., Tri-County Taxpayers Ass'n v. Town Bd. of Queensbury, 55 N.Y.2d 41, 45-46, 447 N.Y.S.2d 699, 432 N.E.2d 592 (1982). In this case, the action would be the construction of a water treatment facility. Thus,......
-
Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. v. Cuomo
...v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 61 NY2d 738, 739, 472 N.Y.S.2d 912, 460 N.E.2d 1347; Matter of Tri-County Taxpayers Assn. v. Town Bd., 55 N.Y.2d 41, 46-47, 447 N.Y.S.2d 699, 432 N.E.2d 592). No decommissioning plan had been proposed or selected; no plans to build generating plants to re......
-
Sierra Club v. Vill. of Painted Post
...factors should be considered in reaching decisions on proposed projects." (Matter of Tri–County Taxpayers Assn. v. Town Bd. of Town of Queensbury, 55 N.Y.2d 41, 46, 432 N.E.2d 592, 447 N.Y.S.2d 699[1982 of Tri–County Taxpayers Assn. v. Town Bd. of Town of Queensbury, 55 N.Y.2d 41, 46, 432 N......
-
Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. v. County of Suffolk
...N.E.2d 176 [Court halted construction of high-rise development for noncompliance with SEQRA]; Matter of Tri-County Taxpayers Assn. v. Town Bd., 55 N.Y.2d 41, 447 N.Y.S.2d 699, 432 N.E.2d 592 [Court nullified resolutions pertaining to sewer district because of SEQRA violation]; Weinberg, 198......
-
Judicial review under SEQRA: a statistical study.
...project or program." (N.Y. 1982). Tri-County Taxpayers EIS needed on a referendum to Ass'n v. Town Bd., establish and finance a proposed 432 N.E.2d 592 sewer district. (N.Y. 1982). 1983 Bd. of Visitors-Marcy Emergency action exempt from EIS Psychiatric Ctr. v. requirement. Coughlin, 453 N.E......
-
Seeking the spirit of SEQRA from beneath the paperwork.
...(82) Id. at 1145 (quoting N.Y. ENVTL. CONSERV. LAW [section] 8-0109(4) (McKinney 1997)). See also Tri-County Taxpayers Ass'n v. Town Bd., 432 N.E.2d 592, 594 (N.Y. 1982) (remarking that the Legislature's intent was to make the EIS accessible to the Town Board and public prior to any action ......
-
SEQRA: effective weapon, if used directed.
...A. CARO, THE POWER BROKER: ROBERT MOSES AND THE FALL OF NEW YORK 218 (1974). (3) See, e.g., Tri-County Taxpayers Ass'n v. Town Bd., 432 N.E.2d 592, 592 (N.Y. 1982) (involving the development of a sewer district); Town of Henrietta v. Dep't of Envtl. Conserv., 430 N.Y.S.2d 440, 443 (App. Div......