environmental factors in New York

2007“The impact that a project may have on . . . existing community character, with or without a separate impact on the physical environment, is a relevant concern in an environmental analysis” (Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York, 68 NY2d 359, 366 [1986]).

2004The initial environmental analysis conducted by the lead agency or agencies must also include a study of “the same areas of environmental impacts as would be contained in an EIS, including both the short-term and long-term effects as well as the primary and secondary effects of an action on the environment” (Chinese Staff & Workers Assn., 68 NY2d at 364 [citations omitted]).

2024Nevertheless, as articulated in the petition, by virtue of petitioners' members' proximity to the facilities, the proposed increase in use of those facilities will affect them differently than other members of the public, thus conferring standing under the specific facts of this case ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v Common Council of City of Albany , 13 NY3d 297, 305-306 [2009]; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk , 77 NY2d 761, 779 [1991]; Matter of Town of Coeymans v City of Albany , 284 AD2d 830, 833-834 [3d Dept 2001], lvs denied 97 NY2d 602 [2001], 97 NY2d 602 [2001];

2024Nevertheless, as articulated in the petition, by virtue of petitioners' members' proximity to the facilities, the proposed increase in use of those facilities will affect them differently than other members of the public, thus conferring standing under the specific facts of this case ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v Common Council of City of Albany , 13 NY3d 297, 305-306 [2009]; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk , 77 NY2d 761, 779 [1991]; Matter of Town of Coeymans v City of Albany , 284 AD2d 830, 833-834 [3d Dept 2001], lvs denied 97 NY2d 602 [2001], 97 NY2d 602 [2001];

2024Moreover, proximity alone is generally insufficient to raise an environmental challenge ( see Matter of Creda, LLC v City of Kingston Planning Bd. , 212 AD3d 1043, 1046 [3d Dept 2023]).

2024Moreover, proximity alone is generally insufficient to raise an environmental challenge ( see Matter of Creda, LLC v City of Kingston Planning Bd. , 212 AD3d 1043, 1046 [3d Dept 2023]).

2024Nevertheless, as articulated in the petition, by virtue of petitioners' members' proximity to the facilities, the proposed increase in use of those facilities will affect them differently than other members of the public, thus conferring standing under the specific facts of this case ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v Common Council of City of Albany , 13 NY3d 297, 305-306 [2009]; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk , 77 NY2d 761, 779 [1991]; Matter of Town of Coeymans v City of Albany , 284 AD2d 830, 833-834 [3d Dept 2001], lvs denied 97 NY2d 602 [2001], 97 NY2d 602 [2001];

2024Nevertheless, as articulated in the petition, by virtue of petitioners' members' proximity to the facilities, the proposed increase in use of those facilities will affect them differently than other members of the public, thus conferring standing under the specific facts of this case ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v Common Council of City of Albany , 13 NY3d 297, 305-306 [2009]; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk , 77 NY2d 761, 779 [1991]; Matter of Town of Coeymans v City of Albany , 284 AD2d 830, 833-834 [3d Dept 2001], lvs denied 97 NY2d 602 [2001], 97 NY2d 602 [2001];

2024Nevertheless, as articulated in the petition, by virtue of petitioners' members' proximity to the facilities, the proposed increase in use of those facilities will affect them differently than other members of the public, thus conferring standing under the specific facts of this case ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v Common Council of City of Albany , 13 NY3d 297, 305-306 [2009]; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk , 77 NY2d 761, 779 [1991]; Matter of Town of Coeymans v City of Albany , 284 AD2d 830, 833-834 [3d Dept 2001], lvs denied 97 NY2d 602 [2001], 97 NY2d 602 [2001];

2024Nevertheless, as articulated in the petition, by virtue of petitioners' members' proximity to the facilities, the proposed increase in use of those facilities will affect them differently than other members of the public, thus conferring standing under the specific facts of this case ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v Common Council of City of Albany , 13 NY3d 297, 305-306 [2009]; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk , 77 NY2d 761, 779 [1991]; Matter of Town of Coeymans v City of Albany , 284 AD2d 830, 833-834 [3d Dept 2001], lvs denied 97 NY2d 602 [2001], 97 NY2d 602 [2001];

2022Here, the Planning Board conducted a coordinated review and its meeting minutes and the comprehensive 31-page negative declaration demonstrate that it thoroughly addressed the environmental factors that were necessary to issue the SEQRA negative declaration even upon a type I evaluation ( see Matter of Residents Against Wal-Mart v Planning Bd. of Town of Greece , 60 AD3d 1343, 1344 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 715 [2009]; Matter of Ahearn v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Shawangunk , 158 AD2d 801, 803-804 [3d Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 706 [1990]; see also Matter of Steele v Town of

2022Inasmuch as the Planning Board "consider[ed] the same criteria when making a determination concerning significant adverse environmental impacts whether the action was classified as type I or unlisted" ( Matter of Citizens for Responsible Zoning v Common Council of City of Albany , 56 AD3d 1060 , 1061 [3d Dept 2008]), we conclude that the Planning Board properly complied with SEQRA's mandates ( see Matter of Coursen v Planning Bd. of Town of Pompey , 37 AD3d 1159, 1160 [4th Dept 2007]; cf. Matter of Miranda Holdings, Inc. v Town Bd. of the Town of Orchard Park , 206 AD3d 1662, 1663-1664 [4th De

2022Here, the Planning Board conducted a coordinated review and its meeting minutes and the comprehensive 31-page negative declaration demonstrate that it thoroughly addressed the environmental factors that were necessary to issue the SEQRA negative declaration even upon a type I evaluation ( see Matter of Residents Against Wal-Mart v Planning Bd. of Town of Greece , 60 AD3d 1343, 1344 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 715 [2009]; Matter of Ahearn v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Shawangunk , 158 AD2d 801, 803-804 [3d Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 706 [1990]; see also Matter of Steele v Town of

2022Here, the Planning Board conducted a coordinated review and its meeting minutes and the comprehensive 31-page negative declaration demonstrate that it thoroughly addressed the environmental factors that were necessary to issue the SEQRA negative declaration even upon a type I evaluation ( see Matter of Residents Against Wal-Mart v Planning Bd. of Town of Greece , 60 AD3d 1343, 1344 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 715 [2009]; Matter of Ahearn v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Shawangunk , 158 AD2d 801, 803-804 [3d Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 706 [1990]; see also Matter of Steele v Town of

2022Inasmuch as the Planning Board "consider[ed] the same criteria when making a determination concerning significant adverse environmental impacts whether the action was classified as type I or unlisted" ( Matter of Citizens for Responsible Zoning v Common Council of City of Albany , 56 AD3d 1060 , 1061 [3d Dept 2008]), we conclude that the Planning Board properly complied with SEQRA's mandates ( see Matter of Coursen v Planning Bd. of Town of Pompey , 37 AD3d 1159, 1160 [4th Dept 2007]; cf. Matter of Miranda Holdings, Inc. v Town Bd. of the Town of Orchard Park , 206 AD3d 1662, 1663-1664 [4th De

2017In addition, this determination was reasonable based on the environmental factors set forth in Code of the Town of Southold § 275-12 (see Matter of Birch Tree Partners, LLC v Nature Conservancy, 122 AD3d 841, 842 [2014]; Matter of Zupa v Board of Trustees of Town of Southold, 54 AD3d at 958 ).

2015Tompkins was acting within the scope of his employment with Environmental at the time of the accident at issue (see Lanpont v Savvas Cab Corp., 244 AD2d 208, 209 [1st Dept 1997]).

2009Once complete, the lead agency must then present a written statement containing its reasoned elaboration with references to any applicable supporting documentation (6 NYCRR 617.7 [b] [4]). 14 The initial environmental analysis is then most often followed by an environmental impact statement (EIS), and then, where necessary, as it was in the instant application, an FEIS. 15 Judicial Authority “A court’s authority to examine a SEQRA review conducted by an entity that was required to do so is limited to reviewing whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by

2008Such facts do not rise to immediate creation, as it was the environmental factors of time and temperature fluctuations that caused the allegedly hazardous condition, not the allegedly negligent creation of snow piles (see Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726 [2008], affg 28 AD3d 650, 651 [2006]; Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d at 889 ; Marshall v City of New York, 52 AD3d 586 [2008]; Speach v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 52 AD3d 404 [2008]; Bielecki v City of New York, 14 AD3d at 301-302 ; cf. Bown v Village of Lynbrook, 23 AD2d 559 [1965], read 17 NY2d 826 [1966]).

2004In those situations where it is determined that no significant adverse impact would occur as a result of the action, the lead agency may rely on the EAS and issue a negative statement (CEQR Technical Manual, ch 2, § 210, at 2-9; see also, Spitzer, 100 NY2d at 190).