Matter of Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y. v. Board of Estimate, 59 N.Y.2d 796 (1983)
Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a governmental body must conduct an environmental review, resulting in either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a determination of nonsignificance, before taking action on a proposal that may affect the environment.
Summary
This case addresses the requirements of SEQRA concerning the timing of environmental review. The Court of Appeals held that a county legislature improperly passed a resolution to sell county-owned property because it did not have either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a determination of nonsignificance before voting on the resolution. The court emphasized that SEQRA mandates a preliminary environmental review to determine the potential impact of a proposed action, and this review must be completed before the legislative body takes action. This ensures informed decision-making regarding environmental considerations.
Facts
A county legislature sought to sell county-owned property. Prior to passing Resolution No. 83 approving the sale, the legislature did not prepare or consider either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a determination of nonsignificance regarding the potential environmental impact of the sale. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the resolution based on non-compliance with SEQRA.
Procedural History
The case originated in a lower court, which ruled on the SEQRA challenge. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a county legislature violates SEQRA by passing a resolution to sell county-owned property without first preparing either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a determination of nonsignificance regarding the potential environmental impact of the sale.
Holding
Yes, because SEQRA requires a responsible agency to make an initial determination of whether an EIS is needed “as early as possible in the formulation of a proposal for an action” (ECL 8-0109, subd 4), and the legislature failed to do so before passing the resolution.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals based its reasoning on the intent and specific provisions of SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) and its implementing regulations. The court cited Matter of Tri-County Taxpayers Assn. v Town Bd. of Town of Queensbury, 55 NY2d 41, emphasizing that environmental impact statements must be accessible to decision-makers prior to action on a proposal. The court highlighted ECL 8-0109 (subd 4), which requires agencies to make an initial determination of whether an EIS is necessary “as early as possible.” The court noted the regulatory scheme requires either a determination of nonsignificance or a determination of significance (leading to an EIS) before an action is taken. Here, the county legislature failed to meet either requirement before voting on Resolution No. 83. The court stated: “Regardless of its impact, however, Resolution No. 83 was not properly passed because the county legislature did not have prior to passing that resolution either an EIS or a determination of nonsignificance.” This failure violated the core principle of SEQRA, which aims to ensure that environmental factors are considered before irreversible decisions are made. The ruling reinforces the procedural requirements of SEQRA and the importance of timely environmental review in governmental decision-making. The court explicitly ties its decision to the earlier *Tri-County Taxpayers* case, clarifying that even when the environmental impact isn’t immediately obvious, the *process* of environmental review must still be followed.