75 N.Y.2d 62 (1990)
Under SEQRA, when determining whether an action will have a significant effect on the environment, agencies must consider reasonably related effects, including subsequent actions that are part of a long-range plan, likely to be undertaken as a result, or dependent on the action under consideration.
Summary
The Village of Westbury challenged the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) negative declaration regarding the reconstruction of a parkway interchange. The Village argued that DOT failed to consider the cumulative environmental impact of the interchange project and a planned subsequent widening of the adjacent parkway. The Court of Appeals held that DOT was required to consider the combined environmental effects of both projects because the widening project was a subsequent action related to and dependent on the interchange reconstruction. The court also clarified the applicable environmental review standards and the timeliness of the challenge.
Facts
DOT initiated a project to reconstruct the interchange of the Northern State Parkway and Meadowbrook State Parkway to improve safety and reduce traffic congestion. As part of the interchange project, additional lanes were constructed on the Northern State Parkway for a short distance east of the interchange. These lanes would only become functional upon completion of a separate project to widen the Northern State Parkway further east. The Village of Westbury argued that DOT should have considered the environmental impacts of both the interchange reconstruction and the subsequent widening project in its environmental review.
Procedural History
The Village of Westbury filed an Article 78 proceeding challenging DOT’s negative declaration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division reversed, annulling the negative declaration and remitting the matter to DOT for further consideration. DOT appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the interchange reconstruction and the proposed widening of the Northern State Parkway must be considered together when determining whether DOT’s actions will have a significant effect on the environment under SEQRA.
2. Whether the regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) or those of DOT control the environmental review determination in this case.
3. Whether the proceeding is timely.
Holding
1. Yes, because the widening of the Northern State Parkway is a subsequent action contemplated by the regulations, and the environmental effects of the two projects should be considered together.
2. Yes, DOT should process the proposed action in the same way Type I actions are processed under DEC regulations and determine whether it has a significant effect on the environment, because DOT’s regulations are intended to be no less protective than DEC’s.
3. Yes, because the statute of limitations began to run when DOT served the Village with notice of the negative declaration.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the widening project was a “subsequent action” related to the interchange reconstruction. It found that the two projects were complementary components of a plan to alleviate traffic congestion, sharing a common purpose and scheduled for consecutive construction. The Court emphasized that the design of each project was dependent on the other, as the additional lanes built during the interchange project had no independent utility without the subsequent widening. The court cited 6 NYCRR 617.11 (b) and 17 NYCRR 15.11 (b), stating that an agency must consider reasonably related effects, including subsequent actions which are “included in any long-range plan,” “likely to be undertaken as a result thereof,” or “dependent thereon.” The Court distinguished this case from situations where highway projects are related in a broad sense but not totally dependent on each other. Here, DOT’s reliance on the future widening in planning the interchange established the required connection. Regarding the applicable regulations, the Court held that DOT should apply its regulations in a manner no less protective of the environment than DEC’s, processing the action similarly to a Type I action under DEC rules. Finally, the Court determined the proceeding was timely, finding that the statute of limitations began to run when DOT served the Village, the party most directly affected by the project, with notice of the negative declaration. The court stated, “The purpose of the SEQRA notice requirement is to provide notice to the party or parties most likely to be affected by agency action.”