Opinion
2001-10163
Argued October 8, 2002.
February 4, 2003.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a zoning resolution of the respondent City Council of the City of Mount Vernon, dated January 26, 2000, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated October 9, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Thacher Proffitt Wood, White Plains, N.Y. (Lino J. Sciarretta, Kevin J. Plunkett, and Matthew W. Brissenden of counsel), for appellants.
Zarin Steinmetz, White Plains, N.Y. (Michael D. Zarin of counsel), for respondent City of Mount Vernon Industrial Development Agency, and Cuddy Feder Worby, LLP (William S. Null and Neil J. Alexander of counsel), for respondent City of Mount Vernon (one brief filed).
Delbello Donnellan Weingarten Tartaglia Wise Wiederkehr, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (William E. Dumke and Mark P. Weingarten of counsel), for respondent G S; Mount Vernon, LLC.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
This proceeding is one of several before this court challenging the rezoning a 14.55-acre site in the City of Mount Vernon that is to be developed into a large, multi-tenant retail shopping center, commonly referred to as the Sandford Boulevard Redevelopment Project. In the judgment appealed from, all viable challenges raised to the rezoning were denied on the merits. We affirm.
Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the respondent City of Mount Vernon Industrial Development Agency (hereinafter the IDA) was a proper lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [u]). Further, the record reveals that the IDA identified "the relevant areas of environmental concern," took a "hard look" at them (Matter of Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn. v. Jorling, 85 N.Y.2d 382, 387), and made a "reasoned elaboration" of the basis for its determination (Matter of Merson v. McNally, 90 N.Y.2d 742, 751). Thus, the determination of the IDA is supported by the record and should not be disturbed (see Matter of Merson v. McNally, supra; Matter of Harwood v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Southampton, 176 A.D.2d 291). Further, we reject the petitioners' contention that SEQRA review was improperly segmented (see Matter of Vil. of Tarrytown v. Planning Bd. of Vil. of Sleepy Hollow, 292 A.D.2d 617, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 609; Matter of Buerger v. Town of Grafton, 235 A.D.2d 984). The petitioners' contention that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter SEIS) was required is time-barred, as the petitioners failed to request an SEIS within four months of the adoption by the IDA of its Findings Statement (see Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. City of Albany, 70 N.Y.2d 193). In any event, an SEIS is only required if "environmentally significant modifications" are made after the issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter FEIS) (see Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400). Here, there is no evidence of changes in the proposed project, newly-discovered information, or adverse environmental impacts which were inadequately addressed in the FEIS that would require supplementation.
The Supreme Court also properly determined that the City Council of the City of Mount Vernon, as an involved agency, conducted an adequate and appropriate coordinated environmental review. In adopting its own Findings Statement, the City Council properly relied upon the FEIS and Findings Statement prepared by the lead agency, the IDA (see East Thirteenth St. Community Assn. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 189 A.D.2d 352, affd 84 N.Y.2d 287). Any initial procedural defect in the City Council's adoption of the rezoning resolution was effectively cured (see Matter of Golden Triangle Assocs. v. Town Bd. of Town of Amherst, 185 A.D.2d 617; Matter of Welsh v. Town of Amherst Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 270 A.D.2d 844).
The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.