Kittredge v. Planning Board of the Town of Liberty

Petitioners brought about this proceeding to appeal a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing petitioners’ Article 78 appeal to review determinations of respondent Planning Board of the Town of Liberty issuing a negative declaration of environmental significance and granting the application of respondent CR Menderis, LLC for preliminary subdivision approval.

In May of 2006, CR Menderis, LLC (Menderis) submitted an application for approval to subdivide a 143.2-acre plat into 27 lots for single family homes to the Planning Board of the Town of Liberty (the Board). When a public hearing was held, numerous surrounding landowners expressed concerns regarding the proposed development’s impact on the surrounding environment. The Board then required Menderis to conduct studies to address the raised environmental concerns. After receiving the results of the studies, the Board issued a negative declaration of environmental significance and granted preliminary subdivision approval to Menderis.

Petitioners then commenced an Article 78 appeal to annul the decision arguing that the negative declaration violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the subdivision approval violated Town laws and codes. The Supreme Court upheld the Board’s decisions which resulted in this appeal.

The Court agrees with petitioners’ contention that the Board did not closely investigate every aspect of potential environmental impact from the project. While the Board’s studies involving wetlands and storm water impact fulfilled its obligations to take the requisite hard look, the studies concerning the presence of endangered or threatened species were inadequate. The Board based its decision on two letters from the Department of Environmental Conservation that merely stated that their databases showed no record of endangered species in the area but the absence of records would not definitively establish that such species do not exist. Therefore, the Board’s determination that there would be no significant impact on wildlife was arbitrary and capricious.

Additionally, the Court agrees with petitioners’ contention that the Board improperly failed to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed subdivision following its issuance of a negative declaration.

Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment, without costs.