47 N.Y.2d 925 (1979)

The applicability of the Freshwater Wetlands Act to a property must be determined before considering issues related to property use and potential environmental endangerment.

Summary

Rappl & Hoenig Co. sought judicial review to determine if the Freshwater Wetlands Act applied to its property. The lower courts held that the Act applied to both artificially and naturally created wetlands. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, but clarified the reasoning. The court emphasized that the primary issue for judicial review was whether the Act applied to the petitioner’s property at all. The case was remanded to Special Term to make the necessary factual findings to determine if the property constituted a wetland under the Act before any further questions regarding property use or environmental impact could be addressed.

Facts

The specific facts concerning the nature of Rappl & Hoenig Co.’s property are not extensively detailed in the opinion, but the central point is that a determination needed to be made as to whether the property qualified as a freshwater wetland under the meaning of the Freshwater Wetlands Act (ECL 24-0107, subd 1). The determination of whether petitioner’s property could be drained without endangering the environment or questions concerning the use of the property could only be raised after the determination that the subject property comes within the Freshwater Wetlands Act.

Procedural History

The case originated as a proceeding pursuant to ECL 24-1105, initiated by Rappl & Hoenig Co. to challenge the applicability of the Freshwater Wetlands Act to their property. The lower courts initially held that the Act applied to both artificially and naturally created wetlands. The Appellate Division order was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the order, but clarified the reasoning and remanded the case to Special Term for factual findings.

Issue(s)

Whether the primary issue for judicial review in this proceeding is whether the Freshwater Wetlands Act applies to petitioner’s property, requiring factual findings to determine if the property constitutes a wetland within the meaning of the Act, before questions concerning property use can be considered.

Holding

Yes, because the determination of whether the petitioner’s property could be drained without endangering the environment, as well as other issues concerning the use of the property, may be raised only after a determination that the subject property comes within the Freshwater Wetlands Act (ECL 24-0107, subd 1).

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the initial and sole question for judicial review was whether the Freshwater Wetlands Act applied to Rappl & Hoenig Co.’s property. While the lower courts had addressed the applicability of the Act to both artificial and natural wetlands, the Court of Appeals pointed out that the crucial factual findings necessary to determine whether the property actually constituted a wetland under the statutory definition were lacking. The court emphasized a structured approach: first, determine if the property falls under the Act; then, if it does, the Department of Environmental Conservation (or local government) considers property use through a permit application process (ECL 24-0703, subd 1; 24-0705, subd 1); and finally, review of those determinations can be sought administratively or judicially (ECL 24-1105). The court noted, “If it is determined that the property comes within the purview of the act, questions concerning the use of the property must be considered initially by the Department of Environmental Conservation or the duly empowered local government within the confines of an application for a permit.” By remanding the case to Special Term, the court ensured that the foundational question of the Act’s applicability would be resolved before proceeding to secondary issues of property use and environmental impact.