Wedinger v. Goldberger, 71 N.Y.2d 428 (1988)
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has continuing jurisdiction under the Freshwater Wetlands Act to identify and map potential freshwater wetlands at least up to and including the promulgation of a final map.
Summary
This case addresses whether the DEC’s failure to designate certain properties on a tentative map exempts those properties from DEC jurisdiction and regulation under the Freshwater Wetlands Act. The Court of Appeals held that the DEC’s jurisdiction extends throughout the mapping process, including the period before a final map is promulgated. The Court reasoned that restricting DEC’s jurisdiction to only mapped areas would frustrate the intent of the Act, which is to protect and preserve freshwater wetlands. The Court also addressed the appellants’ claims that the tentative designation of their properties as wetlands constituted a taking without just compensation, finding that the requirement to obtain a permit did not constitute a taking.
Facts
Several individuals and corporations purchased land in the Bloeser’s Pond area of Staten Island in 1984. These properties were not designated as freshwater wetlands on the 1981 tentative map issued by the DEC.
In 1985, the DEC began studying the Bloeser’s Pond area for possible freshwater wetland designation. The DEC discovered that the area qualified as a wetland based on its acreage.
The DEC notified the landowners that their lands were tentatively identified as freshwater wetlands and that they needed to apply for a permit before developing the land.
The landowners, instead of seeking permits, challenged the DEC’s jurisdiction over their properties.
Procedural History
The landowners initiated Article 78 proceedings challenging the DEC’s attempt to regulate their properties.
The Supreme Court, Richmond County, granted the petitions, holding that the DEC lacked jurisdiction over the properties.
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court’s decision and dismissed the petitions, upholding the DEC’s jurisdiction.
The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the DEC’s failure to designate the appellants’ properties on a 1981 tentative map exempts those properties from DEC jurisdiction and regulation under the Freshwater Wetlands Act, when subsequent tentative and final maps included the properties.
Whether the tentative designation of the appellants’ properties as wetlands constitutes a deprivation of property without just compensation.
Holding
1. No, because the DEC has continuing jurisdiction under the Freshwater Wetlands Act to identify and map potential freshwater wetlands at least up to and including the promulgation of a final map.
2. No, because the tentative designation as a wetland does not prohibit development but merely requires that those holding property interests obtain an administrative permit. Further, the landowners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by seeking a permit before bringing suit.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the statutory scheme of the Freshwater Wetlands Act, particularly ECL 24-0703 (5), contemplates DEC jurisdiction during the entire evolving period up to and including final mapping. To hold otherwise would frustrate the intent and purpose of the legislation.
The Court cited Matter of Tri Cities Indus. Park v Commissioner of Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 76 AD2d 232, 235-236, stating, “The plain language of this subdivision [ECL 24-0703 (5)] proscribes activity on said lands prior to promulgation of a final wetland map unless a permit has been issued. This clear language, together with the express public policy and intent of the legislation as declared in ECL 24-0103, confers jurisdiction in DEC for the entire period between the effective date of the act and promulgation of a final map. To hold otherwise would frustrate the clear intent and purpose of the legislation”.
Regarding the taking claim, the Court distinguished French Investing Co. v City of New York, 39 NY2d 587, where a zoning ordinance directly converted private lands into public domain. In contrast, the Freshwater Wetlands Act merely requires landowners to obtain a permit before engaging in certain activities. The Court also emphasized that a taking can only be established after a permit has been sought and denied, and the owner has demonstrated that no permissible use would allow a reasonable return on the property.
The Court referenced Spears v Berle, 48 NY2d 254, reiterating that a landowner bears a “heavy burden of proof” to establish a taking.
The court also rejected the landowner’s reliance on First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles because the landowners had not first established that a taking had occurred by seeking a permit.