State Environmental Quality Review Act compliance challenged in Ontario County (9347)

Listen to this article

Do the petitioners, owners and operators of the Morgan Samuels Inn, have standing to sue the Ontario County Board of Supervisors for violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act≠ Even assuming standing, have the petitioners asserted particular violations to support their claims≠
The trial court’s decision (July 17, 2001) did not detail the reasoning for dismissal, however, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously affirmed the lower court in its recent review of Matter of Noslen Corp., John Sullivan, and Julie Sullivan v. Ontario County Board of Supervisors. There is no evidence that the required SEQRA procedures were omitted or that the Board of Supervisors acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
Factual Background
The Ontario County Board of Supervisors authorized the Jail Project Committee to proceed with the design and implementation of the new Ontario County Jail Project in December 2000.
The existing county jail on Ontario Street in Canandaigua was built in 1960 with a capacity rating for 66 inmates. A modest expansion, double bunking and reliance on facilities in other jurisdictions to deal with the jail’s overcrowding caused the State Commission of Correction to push the county towards building a new facility.
In 1998, the county conducted a comprehensive study, looking at cost-effective approaches to dealing with crime, punishment, rehabilitation, and prevention. A series of recommendations indicated the need for a new jail with three possible county owned sites identified to meet the space and infrastructure requirements.
After extensive discussions two of the three sites were reviewed under SEQRA; the third site, next to a landfill, was eliminated from consideration prior to a detailed environmental review.
To insure that environmental issues received a full hearing, the county notified appropriate agencies and the public, and ultimately held an informational public meeting on May 25, 2000.
The Board of Supervisors was designated as the lead agency. Scoping for the Environmental Impact Statement was completed, SEQRA documents were circulated to all involved, and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared.
A public hearing on the DEIS was held, comments from the public received, and the final environmental impact statement was deemed completed in November 2000. The Board of Supervisors passed Resolution 781-2000 in December 2001, accepting the findings and authorizing the design and implementation of the Jail Project.
At Trial
The petitioners brought a combined CPLR Article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, asserting that the respondent failed to comply with SEQRA in authorizing the construction of a new county jail within the county complex in Hopewell, some 5,100 ft. from petitioner’s business location.
Dismissing the action, the New York Supreme Court, Ontario County, was not specific whether it dismissed the action on standing issues or on the merits. Appealing the decision of Justice Bergin, the petitioners came before the Appellate Division.
Standing To Sue
A threshold question in an action alleging SEQRA violations is whether the plaintiff has standing to sue. Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761 (1991) set forth a two prong test requiring (1) the allegation of a direct environmental harm different from that of the public at large, and (2) allegation of a direct environmental harm within the zone of interests protected by SEQRA.
Appellants here did not meet the test for standing in the court below. Morgan Samuels Inn, located at 2920 Smith Rd., is too far from the Jail Project to establish standing. Although proximity is often determinative, as distance increases, the inferences of impact diminish.
In the case at hand, the noise, traffic and view are sufficiently distant from the petitioners’ business to avoid the first prong of the test, and petitioners’ lack of specificity caused them to fail the second prong of the test. (The petitioners’ concern over loss of business is an economic concern, not environmental.)
On Appeal
Was the county’s action arbitrary and capricious≠
“Although the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding it should have done so on the ground that petitioners lack standing to raise their SEQRA challenge. The fact that petitioners own an Inn located at least three-quarters of a mile from the county jail project ‘is insufficient, without more, to confer standing,’ the Appellate Division concluded, citing Matter of Many v. Village of Sharon Springs Bd. Of Trustees, 218 AD2d 845, Matter of Rediker v. Zoning Bd. Of Appeals of Town of Philipstown, 280 AD2d 548, and other cases.
Explaining that petitioners failed to establish any serious environmental impact from the Jail Project, the court wrote, “We further conclude that petitioners’ substantive challenge under SEQRA lacks merit. Contrary to petitioners’ contention, respondent did not improperly segment the jail project from other county projects. The record establishes that the construction of the new jail is a discrete project that is not part of any long-range plan of action, and thus segmentation did not occur ….”
Segmentation Argument
As to petitioners’ argument that the respondent segmented the jail project from other county projects, without considering the impact of a broader range of concerns, the court found the jail project to be a discrete project, with no evidence of improper segmentation.
“Because the jail project is independent of potential future plans to expand existing facilities at the County Complex,” wrote the court in its June 14, 2002 memorandum, “a review of the cumulative impact of the jail project and future potential projects at the complex was not required. *** Contrary to petitioners’ further contentions, respondent considered alternative sites for the jail … and took the requisite hard look at the need for a new jail and the effect of the project on the water system, traffic at a nearby intersection, and the geology of the proposed site. Respondent’s failure to consider the historic and aesthetic significance of the inn was reasonable given the fact that the inn is located at least three-quarters of a mile from the jail project. *** Although petitioners additionally contend that respondent failed to comply with SEQRA’s procedural requirements, they fail to allege the violation of any specific procedural requirement.”
Post Script
Respondent’s brief points out that, “There is an existing jail at the County Complex right now and it is much closer to the Inn than the proposed jail which will replace it.”
Further, respondents noted numerous instances where the Ontario County project went beyond the SEQRA requirements in evaluating the project and making its site recommendation.
Respondents also indicate that the Morgan Samuels Inn, built in 1810, is not a registered historical landmark, although petitioners’ pleadings refer to it as a Landmark Historic Mansion.