WEOK Broadcasting Corp. v. Planning Board, 79 N.Y.2d 376 (1992)
A Planning Board’s denial of a site plan based on negative aesthetic impact under SEQRA must be supported by substantial evidence, not merely generalized community objections, to demonstrate a reasoned elaboration of the decision.
Summary
WEOK Broadcasting Corp. sought site plan approval to construct a radio transmitter facility. The Planning Board denied the application, citing concerns about the visual impact, particularly from the Franklin D. Roosevelt home. WEOK challenged this decision, arguing it lacked substantial evidence. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision annulling the Board’s determination. The Court held that while aesthetic impact is a valid consideration under SEQRA, the Board’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence, relying instead on generalized community objections without factual support countering WEOK’s visual impact analysis.
Facts
WEOK applied for site plan approval to build an AM radio transmitter facility with five towers in a designated business zone where such towers were a permitted use. The Planning Board issued a positive declaration, requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address potential environmental effects, including the visual impact from various locations, one being the Franklin D. Roosevelt residence. WEOK submitted a DEIS concluding minor to moderate visual impact, but none from the FDR home, based on a spring assessment when trees were leafless. Negative comments from agencies and residents focused on visual impact from the FDR site. The Board’s consultant acknowledged WEOK’s thorough analysis but cautioned that visual assessments involve subjective judgments. WEOK’s FEIS detailed mitigation efforts, including reducing tower height and changing lighting. The Board denied site plan approval citing the Visual Impact Statement’s unpersuasiveness, potential visibility from the FDR homestead, lack of financial benefit to the town, and conflict with orderly development.
Procedural History
WEOK filed an Article 78 proceeding challenging the Board’s determination. Supreme Court annulled the determination and granted site plan approval, finding no contradictory evidence other than generalized complaints. The Appellate Division affirmed, stating the denial was based solely on aesthetics and lacked substantial evidence, as the Board disregarded WEOK’s comprehensive visual impact analysis. Two dissenting justices argued aesthetic impact was a valid basis for review, and the Board had cogent reasons not to give conclusive weight to the study. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a planning board’s denial of a site plan application under SEQRA, based on aesthetic impact considerations, is supported by substantial evidence when it relies on generalized community objections rather than factual data countering the applicant’s environmental impact statement.
Holding
No, because the Planning Board’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence; it relied on generalized community objections and speculative comments instead of factual data to counter WEOK’s extensive visual impact analysis.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that SEQRA aims to inject environmental considerations into governmental decision-making and strikes a balance between social, economic, and environmental goals. Aesthetic considerations are a proper area of concern. While SEQRA imposes both procedural and substantive requirements, the core issue is whether the agency took a