Save Sag Harbor v. Vill. of Sag Harbor, 78 Misc. 3d 1225(A), 186 N.Y.S.3d 595 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Co. 2023)

Facts

On February 8, 2022, the village of Sag Harbor Board of Trustees (“village board”) introduced two affordable housing local laws, thereby creating a special permit to allow high-density housing in business and office districts of the Village of Sag Harbor (the “village”) and expanding the definition of apartment building to include three-story mixed-use buildings.1

After hosting a workshop session held on March 8, 2022, the village board held a public hearing on June 14, where the village attorney distributed a proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the legislation. The village board conducted no further discussion of environmental impact of the legislation at the public hearing.2 Immediately after the June 14 hearing was closed, the village board simultaneously adopted both the legislation and the Negative Declaration SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) finding on the same day.3 Upon filing the legislation with the New York secretary of state on June 23, 2022, the “planning analysis,” part of the filed documentation, showed a date of June 22, 2022, which was eight days after both the hearing and the vote to approve.4 Though not conceded by the village, Parts 2 and 3 of the SEQRA Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) were filled out after both the hearing and the vote. Part 3 was not signed by the village mayor until July.5

Procedural History

Here, petitioners were local residents of the village. The case was the initial hearing of the petitioners’ Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules claim, seeking a judgment against the village to annul, vacate, and set aside the June 14, 2022 decision by the Board to adopt the two local laws.6 Respondents, the village board, challenged the standing of petitioners to bring a SEQRA-related claim, asserting petitioners did not meet the burden of establishing injury-in-fact or “zone of interest” for their claims.7

Issues

There were two issues here: (1) whether petitioners had standing to bring the Article 78 claim; and (2) whether the SEQRA environmental review requirement was violated when the Board adopted the local laws without further discussion of the environmental impact at the public hearing.

Rationale

(1) The court held that to have standing, petitioners must show they “would suffer direct harm and injury that is in some way different from the public at large . . . ensur[ing] a genuine stake in the litigation.”8 Here, one of the petitioners owned a business and property located in the business district directly affected by the local laws enacted, thereby establishing the injury-in-fact that would result from the local laws, beyond being a village resident.9 The court held that since one petitioner had standing to challenge the SEQRA determination, all petitioners had standing without the further need to establish their “zone of interest” as close proximity residents.10

(2) Based on regulations and commentary to the SEQRA statute, the fundamental premise of the environmental review law was the need for governmental agencies to “give a ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences of its development decisions,”11 and that “procedures require literal strict compliance.”12 Here, the court held that simultaneous adoption of a Negative Declaration finding and local law violates the SEQRA requirement because the agency did not formally finalize the paperwork on its environmental review until after adopting policy and, additionally, did so without recorded discussion.13

Conclusion

Petitioners established the likelihood of an injury-in-fact, and therefore had standing to bring the Article 78 claim.14 The village violated the SEQRA requirements by voting the local laws into effect without recorded public discussion of the Negative Declaration finding and before finalizing the written EAF that was eventually submitted to the secretary of state.15 The court granted the petitioners request to annul and vacate the village board’s decision.16

Susanne M. Corrigan
Albany Law School, Class of 2024

Endnotes

1 Save Sag Harbor v. Vill. of Sag Harbor, 78 Misc. 3d 1225(A), 186 N.Y.S.3d 595 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Co.) 1, 2.

2 Id. at 2, 3.

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 Id.

6 Id. at 3, 4.

7 Id. at 4.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Id. at 4, 5.

11 Id. at 4 (quoting Ass’n for a Better Long Island, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Envtl. Conversation, 23 N.Y.3.d 1, 6, 988 N.Y.S.2d 115, 11 N.E.3d 188 (N.Y. 2014), (quoting Soc’y of Plastics v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 573 N.E.2d 1034, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778 (N.Y. 1991)).

12 Id. at 5 (citing Glen Head Civ. Assoc. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 88 A.D.2d 484, 453 N.Y.S.2d 732 (N.Y.A.D. 2d Dept. 1982); Pickerell v. Town of Huntington, 45 Misc. 3d 1208(A), 3 N.Y.S.3d 286 (Sp. Ct., Suffolk Co. 2014), (citing to NYC Coalition et al v. Vallone, 100 N.Y.2d 337, 794 N.E.2d 672, 763 N.Y.S.2d 530 (N.Y. 2003).

13 Id. at 5.

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 Id. at 6.