From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Carlson v. Town Board of Smithtown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 25, 1994
206 A.D.2d 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

July 25, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioners operate a gravel and sand mining business in Kings Park, New York. In 1991, the petitioners submitted an application for a mining permit with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Thereafter, the Town of Smithtown (hereinafter the Town) assumed lead agency status pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (hereinafter SEQRA) with respect to the petitioners' application. The Town informed the petitioners that they were required to apply for certain town permits and approvals in connection with their application. The petitioners refused to submit the applications, and claimed that the information was not necessary for the Town to make a determination of environmental significance. The Town subsequently suspended review of the petitioners' application until the requested information was supplied. The petitioners then commenced the instant proceeding challenging the Town's determination as arbitrary and capricious.

The petitioners' contention that the Town had sufficient information to make a positive declaration is without merit. In the context of a preliminary SEQRA determination, the Town, as lead agency, must identify the relevant areas of environmental concern, take a "hard look" at them, and make a "reasoned elaboration" of the basis for its determination (see, Akpan v Koch, 75 N.Y.2d 561, 570; Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 417; Matter of Callanan Indus. v Rourke, 187 A.D.2d 781; Matter of Green-point Renaissance Enter. Corp. v. City of New York, 137 A.D.2d 597). Moreover, a positive declaration must state that it has been prepared in accordance with ECL article 8 and contain "a brief description of the possible significant environmental effects that have been identified and the reasons supporting the determination. Agencies must maintain a file of the facts, written analyses and conclusions leading to their determinations" ( 6 NYCRR 617.10 [b]). Given the broad review powers of the Town as lead agency under SEQRA (see, E.F.S. Ventures Corp. v. Foster, 71 N.Y.2d 359, 373), it was not unreasonable to require the petitioners to supply the additional information. Accordingly, the proceeding was properly dismissed. Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Carlson v. Town Board of Smithtown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 25, 1994
206 A.D.2d 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Carlson v. Town Board of Smithtown

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CARLSON ASSOCIATES et al., Appellants, v. TOWN BOARD OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 25, 1994

Citations

206 A.D.2d 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
615 N.Y.S.2d 407

Citing Cases

Matter of Carlson Assocs. v. Town Bd. of Smithtown

Decided January 10, 1995 Appeal from (2d Dept: 206 A.D.2d 530) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…