Opinion
1408
June 12, 2003.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered January 17, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a "certificate of appropriateness" (COA) issued by respondent New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) with regard to proposed plans for the construction of a new building, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Roger R. Crane, Jr., for petitioners-appellants.
Dona B. Morris Robert S. Davis, for respondents-respondents.
Jack L. Lester, for amicus curiae.
Before: Lerner, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.
Since the issuance of the COA was rationally based (see CPLR 7803), the "judgment . . . of the Commission's historians and architects" must be sustained (see Matter of the Socy. for Ethical Culture v. Spatt, 68 A.D.2d 112, 117-118, affd 51 N.Y.2d 449). The record demonstrates that, after numerous public meetings/hearings, the Commission, giving due regard to the opponents of the subject COA application, informed the applicant on June 13, 2000 that the original proposal would not be approved and offered "guidance" as to specific matters, noting that the originally proposed 17-story tower-like building was not appropriate to the "streetscape" formed by the adjacent buildings and was too large for the underlying lot. The applicant thereafter submitted a modified proposal for an 11-story building that gained the support of some architects and community groups and then went further, proposing to reduce the building's height to 10 stories. Final approval was not granted until the developer had satisfied the Commission's condition that the fenestration on the Madison Avenue facade be revised.
The Commission's findings, attached to the COA, reveal that its determinations concerning historical and architectural ramifications of the proposed construction were the result of reasoned deliberation.
The IAS court properly concluded that the LPC was not required to comply with SEQRA. Where, as here, "an agency has some discretion, but that discretion is circumscribed by a narrow set of criteria which do not bear any relationship to the environmental concerns that may be raised in an EIS, its decisions will not be considered 'actions' for purposes of SEQRA's EIS requirements" (Inc. Vil. of Atl. Beach v. Gavalas, 81 N.Y.2d 322, 326). The Commission's determination with respect to a COA application, limited to the appropriateness of the proposed building's exterior architectural features and narrowly circumscribed by the architectural, aesthetic, historical and other criteria specifically set forth in the Landmarks Law (see Administrative Code of the City of N.Y. § 25-307), was "ministerial" for SEQRA purposes (see Matter of 67 Vestry Tenants Assn. v. Raab, 172 Misc.2d 214, 223).
We have considered petitioners' contention that the LPC violated the Open Meetings Law and find it to be without merit.
Motion seeking leave to file Amicus Curiae brief granted.
Motion seeking leave to dismiss appeal denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.