## Facts

- Landowners sought to rezone about three acres of a 7.79-acre parcel along Route 22 in the Town of Amenia from residential-medium density to general business to relocate and expand an auto repair business.
- The parcel included agricultural-zoned acreage and lay within New York State Agricultural District 21.
- The proposed expansion included construction of a 6,000-square-foot building and development of about 1.65 acres, involving removal of vegetation and substantial excavation (about 3,000 cubic yards/tons of natural material).
- The Town Board acted as SEQRA lead agency, classified the proposal as an unlisted action, and required environmental assessment forms (EAFs).
- The Town’s EAF Part 2 identified 14 “potential large impacts” across multiple environmental categories (e.g., land disturbance, vegetation removal, erosion/stormwater, wildlife, and traffic/noise/odor concerns).
- After public hearings, the Town Board issued a SEQRA negative declaration and enacted a local law rezoning the subject acreage to general business.
- Nearby residents and other interested parties brought an Article 78 proceeding challenging the negative declaration and rezoning.
- Supreme Court annulled both determinations for failure to satisfy SEQRA’s “hard look” requirement; the Town appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Town Board complied with SEQRA when it issued a negative declaration despite its own EAF identifying numerous potential large environmental impacts.
2. Whether the negative declaration and rezoning were arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law because the Town did not take a “hard look” and provide a reasoned elaboration for its determination.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment annulling the negative declaration and the rezoning.
- The court held the Town failed to demonstrate, on the administrative record, that it took the required “hard look” at identified environmental concerns.
- The Town also failed to provide a reasoned elaboration supporting a finding of no significant adverse environmental impact.
- Because the SEQRA determination was invalid, the rezoning enacted in reliance on it could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Under SEQRA, an agency must identify relevant areas of environmental concern, take a “hard look” at them, and provide a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination.
- A negative declaration is arbitrary and capricious when the record does not substantiate the agency’s conclusion that there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts.
- Where the lead agency’s own EAF flags multiple potential large impacts, the agency must either meaningfully analyze and explain why impacts are not significant or require further environmental review (including an EIS where warranted).
- A defective SEQRA review procedure invalidates subsequent governmental approvals that depend on the SEQRA determination, including legislative zoning changes.

## Conclusion

The court annulled the Town’s SEQRA negative declaration and the related rezoning because the Town’s record did not show a “hard look” or a reasoned explanation addressing multiple potential large impacts identified by its own environmental assessment.


Matter of Avy v. Town of Amenia, 27 A.D.3d 557 (2d Dep’t 2006)