Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast, 9 N.Y.3d 219 (2007)
A lead agency has discretion under SEQRA to determine whether a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) is necessary when project changes, new information, or altered circumstances arise after the initial EIS, and a court should only overturn that decision if it is arbitrary or capricious.
Summary
This case addresses the extent of a planning board’s discretion in deciding whether to require a second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) after a residential development project had been in planning for nearly 20 years. The Court of Appeals held that the Planning Board of the Town of Southeast acted within its discretion when it determined that a second SEIS was not required, even after significant environmental and regulatory changes. The Court emphasized that judicial review of such agency determinations is limited and that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the agency unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by evidence.
Facts
Glickenhaus Brewster Development, Inc. sought approval for a residential development in the Town of Southeast in 1988. The proposed development, called the Meadows at Deans Corners, spanned approximately 309 acres and included 104 homes. The project raised environmental concerns due to its location within the Croton Watershed, which supplies New York City with drinking water. Over several years, the Planning Board reviewed various environmental impact statements. In 2003, a court annulled the conditional final approval, directing the Board to re-evaluate the need for a second SEIS due to significant changes, including expanded wetlands acreage, tightened phosphorous regulations, and the designation of the Croton Watershed as a Critical Resource Water.
Procedural History
1. 1988-1991: Glickenhaus submits DEIS, FEIS, DSEIS, and FSEIS.
2. February 25, 1991: The Board issues a SEQRA findings statement.
3. August 10, 1998, and June 10, 2002: The Board granted preliminary and conditional final approval.
4. February 3, 2003: Supreme Court annuls conditional final approval, remanding for a determination on the need for a second SEIS.
5. April 14, 2003: The Board determines a second SEIS is unnecessary.
6. February 23, 2004: Conditional final approval is granted again.
7. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, holding that a second SEIS was required. The Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division.
Issue(s)
Whether the Planning Board of the Town of Southeast acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it determined that a second SEIS was not necessary to address project and regulatory changes that arose after the filing of the initial SEQRA findings statement.
Holding
No, because the Board took a hard look at the relevant areas of environmental concern and provided a reasoned elaboration for its determination that the changes did not present significant adverse environmental impacts necessitating a second SEIS.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that a lead agency’s decision regarding the necessity of a SEIS is discretionary. The relevant SEQRA regulations state that the lead agency "may require a supplemental EIS." The Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in SEQRA cases, stating that courts should only determine whether the agency (1) identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, (2) took a “hard look” at them, and (3) made a “reasoned elaboration” of the basis for its determination. The Court found that the Board had satisfied these requirements. The Board considered the increased wetlands acreage, the tightened phosphorous regulations, and the Critical Resource Water designation. It relied on reports from the Town’s wetlands consultant and the developer’s engineering consultant, concluding that the changes would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. The Court noted that the Board’s requirement of a technologically advanced sewage treatment facility in its 1991 findings statement anticipated many of the later regulatory changes. The Court also rejected the argument that the Board improperly deferred its SEQRA responsibilities by making the SEIS determination prior to the completion of various permitting processes, stating "Provided that a lead agency sufficiently considers the environmental concerns addressed by particular permits, the lead agency need not await another agency’s permitting decision before exercising its independent judgment on that issue." The court emphasized that SEQRA is to be implemented with minimum delay. The court concluded that the Board’s determination was supported by the evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.