Tampone v. Town of Red Hook Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 215 A.D.3d 866, 187 N.Y.S.3d 103 (2023)
Facts
The petitioners, who owned residential property in the Town of Red Hook, N.Y. challenged a determination made by the town’s zoning enforcement officer that a proposed sewage disposal system was a permitted nonresidential accessory use that could be located on a lot with split zoning. They filed a petition under CPLR article 78 and sought a declaratory judgment against the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, the Town Board, and related defendants.1 The petitioners also challenged the Town Board’s adoption of a local law that codified the zoning officer’s determination, claiming that it violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).2
Procedural History
The petitioners appealed after the Supreme Court of Dutchess County, denied their petition and dismissed the proceeding.3
Issue
Whether the negative declaration issued by the Town Board was affected by an error of law, was arbitrary or capricious, or was an abuse of discretion.
Rationale
The Town Board proposed an amendment to the Zoning Code, which included subsurface utility systems within the definition of “accessory structure” and addressed their installation on split lots.4 The Town Board issued a negative declaration under SEQRA, indicating that the proposed amendment would not have significant adverse environmental impacts.5 Judicial review of a lead agency’s negative declaration focuses on whether the relevant areas of environmental concern were identified, a “hard look” was taken at them, and a reasoned elaboration was provided for the determination.6 The court is “not allowed to substitute its judgment for that of the agency on substantive matters,” and the negative declaration must not be affected by an error of law, be arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.7
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the Town Board’s adoption of the challenged local law did not violate SEQRA.8 The court determined that the Town Board identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a “hard look” at them, and provided a “reasoned elaboration” for its determination.9 As a result, the negative declaration was not affected by an error of law, was not arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.10 The court also found it unnecessary to review the Zoning Board’s determination since the local law effectively codified it.11
Kristin Kurish
Albany Law School, Class of 2025
