Two recent rulings from the Second Department of the New York Appellate Division upheld local land-use decisions under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the State Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL). Municipalities may want to study and understand these rulings as they make further land-use decisions under SEQRA and the EDPL.

In February of this year, the Second Department ruled in favor of the City of New Rochelle when property owners sought Article 78 and Declaratory Relief challenging an amendment of the City’s zoning code and the issuance of a negative declaration under SEQRA. (See Vasser v. City of New Rochelle, 180 A.D.3d 691, 118 N.Y.S.3d 717 (2d Dep’t 2020)).

In rendering its decision, the Second Department upheld the lower court’s finding that the property owners lacked standing to challenge the rezoning and SEQRA determination in connection with the City’s approval of a senior citizen residential facility. The Second Department held that petitioners who lived 1,200 and 1,800 feet away from the proposed development lacked standing because: (1) their homes were not adjacent to, but rather, several streets away from the proposed development; and (2) the speculative and unsubstantiated claims of potential harm (increased noise and traffic) failed to make the requisite showing of direct “injury-in-fact” different in kind or degree than suffered by the public at-large.

In March 2020, the Second Department issued a decision in Matter of River Street Realty Corp. v. City of New Rochelle, 181 A.D.3d. 676, 121 N.Y.S.3d 107 (2d Dep’t 2020) to review a determination of the City of New Rochelle authorizing the taking of real property pursuant the EDPL. The property at issue was the location of the old New Rochelle Firehouse. The city built a new firehouse at a different location.

Despite petitioner’s protestations, the Second Department held that the City provided proper notice to the petitioner under the EDPL and made timely determinations and findings after the hearing. The Court found that while the City did not strictly comply with EDPL 204(c) (3) or (4), any procedural error was harmless because petitioner was advised of its judicial remedies in prior notices and commenced the proceeding in a timely manner. The Court also found that additional contentions made in the petition were not properly made at the EDPL hearings and therefore, were not properly before the Court.