Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/02/2003

Home

Page 6 -- December 10, 2002 7,,B. was denied this right when the court adopted the proposed consent order and permanent injunction. Citation: Board of Trusteex Thorn Tow. nship vs. Roberts, Perry County, Court of A1vpeals of Ohio, 5t.h App. Dist., Perry County, No. 02 CA A (2002), 38 Rezoning -- DevelOper plans to rezone land from:residential to business Neighbors object on environmental grounds NEW YORK (11/07/02) -- The GallOglys applied to rezone 35 acres ot5 unde- veloped land located at the intersection of two roadways. The Galloglys, along with a. developer, wanted to have the property zoned from a combination of professional business district and residential single-family designatiOns to a general business zone to permit the' Construction of a retail shopping center. A full environmental assessment form (EAF) was £~led in support of the rezoning application. In short, the EAF provided thai the project would have lirtle or no negative environmental impact on the community or the neighborhood. The town board conducted a public heating and adopted a.negative decla- ration of environmental significance' and approved the rezoning application, Owners of residential properties near the site of the proposed project brought an action against the Gallogtys and the board, alleging the board decision was in violation of the State Environmental Quality ReView Act (SEQRA). The court determined that the board issued, its decision without considering the most obvious negative environmental' effects on the neighboring residen-. rial areas that would inevitably follow once the project was completed: The Galloglys and the board appealed. DE CISION: Affirmed, The rezoning application was properly denied. The board should have considered' the reasonably-related effects of the Project, "including other simultaneous or subsequent actions' which are: (1) included in any long range plan of which the action under consideration is a: part; (2) likely to be undertaken as a result thereof; or (3) dependent thereon." The record of this case revealed an effort by the Galloglys and the town to dilute the nature of the action subjected to environmental review from the con- struction of a "230,000 sq. ft. retail shopping center with public water and: sewer service." This belied the board's statement, in the negative declaration, that "no constrUction project has been proposed:" The board .was obligated to. consider the impacts and consequences to be expected from any future development at the time of rezonmg, even if. a site plan. had been considered. Citation: Matter of Dejkeesrville Area Neighborhood Association v.- Town Board of the Town. of North Greenbuxh, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, No. 9.t 775 (2002). Xee also: Matter of Buerger v. Town of Gra~on, ~o5 A.D.2d 984.