Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Page 2 ---/December 1995 Z.B. [ Environmental Issues m Board Says No Environmental Impact Statement Needed.' Egge~!t ~: TovvJ~ Board of the Town of Westfield, 630 ~. Y.S. 2d l_ 79 (New York) 1995 A number of construction businesses operated illegally in a residential/ agricultural district of the town of Westfield, N.Y. The town was sued for allow- ing the construction businesses to operate illegally. In res >onse, the Town Board planned to amend the zoning ordinance to allow lira ted retail and construction businesses as specially permitted uses in the distri~ t. Before doing so, it had to complete a Full Environmental Assess- ment ForJn under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The purpose of the assess ment was to determine whether the proposed zoning amendment would have a significant effect on the environment. If so, the board would have to prepare aimore detailed Environmental Impact Statement. In copapleting the form, the board determined that the proposed amend- ment was} the type of action the statute presumed as likely to have a significant effect on ~he'environment. It also acknowledged that the environment could be s~gmficagtly effected if special use permits were granted under the amended ordinance. However, the board decided it would review those effects when special u.,J;e permit applications actually got filed, concluding that any attempt to do so ~efore then "would be speculative at best." It left significant portions of the form unanswered because it was not considering any specific project. The boar~t then concluded that the zoning changes would not have a significant effect ori the environment and did not require an Environmental Impact Statement. The laoard adopted the amendment, in part because of the lawsuit over the existing illegal construction businesses. It said the amendments would give those businesses a chance to comply with the zoning ordinance. After the board passed thie amendment, the town supervisor sent a letter to 14 prohibited busi- · l nesses ~ni the district asking them to apply for special use permits. Egg~;rt sued, asking the court to invalidate the board's declaration that the zoning at~endment would not have a significant environmental impact. He also asked th{ court to declare the zoning amendment invalid. The court dismissed Eggert's!case, and he appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The lower court improperly dismissed the case. The board violated the State Eng, ironmental Quality Review Act when it failed to prepare a draft envi- ronment~l~ impact statement. The board had to consider the environmental concerns likely to result from the ameadment at the earliest possible time. It admitted the amendment was the type of a~ction the law presumed as likely to have a significant effect on the environment. It also acknowledged that it knew of several construction busi- nesses a~ready operating illegally. Because of the amendment, those businesses would b~ able to continue operations if they got special use permits. In that