## Facts

- Laidlaw Energy & Environmental, Inc. owned a 16.5-acre parcel in the Town of Ellicottville zoned “Light Industrial/Service Commercial.”
- A prior owner operated a lumber drying kiln and a natural-gas-powered cogeneration electrical plant on the site.
- Laidlaw applied to the Town Planning Board for site plan approval for a new cogeneration plant fueled by wood chips.
- The Planning Board designated itself lead agency under SEQRA, issued a positive declaration, and required preparation of an environmental impact statement.
- Laidlaw submitted a DEIS and revised DEIS; the Board held a public hearing and requested additional information.
- Laidlaw submitted a draft FEIS and revised FEIS; the Board issued the FEIS and held a further public hearing.
- The Board denied site plan approval, finding air emissions were the greatest concern and that serious increases in harmful emissions would cause an unacceptable adverse environmental impact.
- Laidlaw brought an Article 78 proceeding to annul the denial; Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and Laidlaw appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Planning Board’s denial of site plan approval after SEQRA review was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.
2. Whether the Board satisfied SEQRA by taking a “hard look” at environmental consequences and providing a reasoned elaboration for denying the application based on air-emission impacts.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously affirmed the judgment dismissing the Article 78 petition, without costs.
- The court held the Board’s determination was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence.
- The court concluded the Board took the required “hard look” under SEQRA and provided a reasoned basis for its denial, relying primarily on anticipated air-emission impacts.

## Legal Principles

- In an Article 78 challenge to a SEQRA determination, judicial review asks whether the agency action was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence.
- SEQRA requires the lead agency to take a “hard look” at potential environmental impacts and to provide a reasoned elaboration for its determination.
- Courts do not substitute their judgment for the agency’s environmental and land-use determinations when the agency follows SEQRA procedures, develops a supporting record, and explains its decision.

## Conclusion

The planning board’s denial of site plan approval for a proposed wood-chip-fueled cogeneration plant was upheld because the board conducted an extensive SEQRA review, identified air emissions as a central environmental concern, and rationally concluded the project would cause unacceptable adverse impacts.


Laidlaw Energy & Envtl., Inc. v. Town of Ellicottville, 59 A.D.3d 1084, 873 N.Y.S.2d 814 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 2009)