Matter of Peterson v. Town of N. Greenbush, 9 N.Y.3d 246 (2007)
In determining whether a supermajority vote is required for a zoning amendment under Town Law § 265(1), the measurement of “adjacent land” extends 100 feet from the boundary of the rezoned area, not the boundary of the entire parcel; furthermore, a challenge to a zoning amendment under SEQRA must be commenced within four months of the amendment’s enactment, not the completion of the SEQRA process, unless the SEQRA process itself directly inflicts a concrete injury.
Summary
This case addresses two critical aspects of zoning law: the interpretation of “adjacent land” for protest petitions requiring a supermajority vote on zoning amendments, and the statute of limitations for challenging zoning decisions under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Court of Appeals held that the 100-foot measurement for adjacent landowners objecting to a zoning change starts at the rezoned area’s boundary, not the property’s outer boundary. Additionally, the Court clarified that SEQRA challenges to zoning amendments must be filed within four months of the zoning enactment, reaffirming the principle that the injury occurs when the zoning changes, not necessarily when the SEQRA process concludes.
Facts
The Town of North Greenbush considered rezoning a large area near the intersection of Routes 4 and 43 to allow retail development, requested by landowners John and Thomas Gallogly. The Town released a draft generic environmental impact statement (DGEIS) and, following public input, adopted a final generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) that included an access management plan to mitigate traffic impacts. The final GEIS did not specify the timing of the proposed improvements. A findings statement approved the project, including the rezoning, but deferred the timing of mitigation measures. Opponents of the rezoning presented a protest petition claiming to represent over 20% of landowners within 100 feet of the rezoned area, based on measurements from the tax map parcel boundaries. The Town rejected this, measuring from the actual rezoned boundary, which excluded a buffer zone within the Gallogly property.
Procedural History
After the Town Board approved the rezoning by a 3-2 vote, opponents filed an Article 78 proceeding alleging violations of Town Law § 265(1) and SEQRA. The Supreme Court initially granted the petition and annulled the rezoning based on the Town Law claim. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the petition, finding the protest petition insufficient, the SEQRA claims time-barred, and the SEQRA claims meritless. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Town Law § 265(1) requires measuring the 100-foot distance for protest petitions from the boundary of the rezoned area or the boundary of the entire parcel containing the rezoned area?
2. Whether the statute of limitations for a SEQRA challenge to a zoning amendment runs from the adoption of the rezoning or the completion of the SEQRA process?
3. Whether the Town complied with SEQRA requirements in its environmental review of the rezoning?
Holding
1. No, because the “one hundred feet” must be measured from the boundary of the rezoned area, not the parcel of which the rezoned area is a part.
2. Yes, because in this case the statute of limitations ran from the adoption of the rezoning, not from the earlier completion of the SEQRA process.
3. Yes, because the Town identified relevant environmental concerns, took a “hard look” at them, and provided a reasoned basis for its determination.
Court’s Reasoning
Regarding Town Law § 265(1), the Court reasoned that the statute’s language, referring to “land included in such proposed change,” indicates measurement from the rezoned area itself. This interpretation ensures fairness by linking the right to compel a supermajority vote to the proximity of one’s property to the area actually affected by the zoning change. The Court dismissed concerns about “buffer zoning,” stating that a buffer of 100 feet or more appropriately insulates neighbors from compelling a supermajority vote.
Regarding SEQRA, the Court reaffirmed the principle from Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany, holding that challenges to zoning amendments under SEQRA must be brought within four months of the amendment’s enactment. The Court distinguished Stop-The-Barge v Cahill, noting that it did not involve the enactment of legislation. Here, the petitioners’ injury was contingent until the Town Board approved the rezoning. The Court clarified that the statute of limitations might run from the SEQRA process’s completion if the SEQRA process itself, rather than the rezoning, directly inflicted the injury. The court stated, “that a proceeding alleging SEQRA violations in the enactment of legislation must be commenced within four months of the date of enactment of the ordinance.”
Finally, the Court found that the Town complied with SEQRA by adequately addressing traffic concerns and providing a reasonable explanation for its proposed courses of action. The Court deferred to the Town’s judgment, stating it may not substitute its judgment for that of the Town’s governing body and noted the town’s comment that a more precise plan for traffic mitigation was impractical until the Town could know “which parcels will be developed and when.” The Court noted that the document in question was a generic environmental impact statement, allowing for broader and more general analysis.