## Facts

- A town board pursued an area-wide rezoning near a highway intersection and created a “planned commercial” district to permit retail development on portions of landowners’ property.
- The town conducted review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), issuing a draft generic environmental impact statement (DGEIS) in 2003 and adopting a final generic EIS (GEIS) in March 2004.
- The GEIS addressed traffic impacts and stated that an “access management plan” would be required, describing it generally while anticipating later, project-level review.
- The town issued a SEQRA findings statement and enacted the rezoning on May 13, 2004.
- Opponents filed a written protest petition under Town Law § 265(1)(b), asserting that owners of at least 20% of the land within 100 feet of the affected property protested, which would require a three-fourths supermajority to pass the zoning amendment.
- The landowners left an unrezoned buffer strip (about 200–400 feet wide) between the rezoned portion and the parcel’s outer boundary; the town measured the 100-foot area from the boundary of the rezoned portion and concluded the petition did not meet the 20% threshold.
- The zoning amendment passed by a 3–2 simple majority.
- Trial court annulled the amendment; the intermediate appellate court reversed and dismissed; the state high court affirmed.

## Issues

1. For Town Law § 265(1)(b), is the 100-foot measurement for a protest petition taken from the boundary of the rezoned area or from the outer boundary of the larger parcel containing it?
2. For a SEQRA-based challenge to a rezoning, does the four-month limitations period run from the SEQRA findings statement or from adoption of the rezoning?
3. Did the town’s GEIS and findings satisfy SEQRA, including with respect to traffic impacts and access management mitigation described in general terms?

## Decision

- The 100-foot area under Town Law § 265(1)(b) is measured from the boundary of the land actually rezoned, not from the boundary of the larger parcel containing the rezoned portion.
- The SEQRA claim was timely because the four-month limitations period began to run upon enactment of the rezoning, when opponents first suffered concrete injury.
- The town complied with SEQRA; its generic EIS review and treatment of traffic and access management were sufficient at the rezoning stage.
- The order dismissing the challenge was affirmed, and the rezoning remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Town Law § 265(1)(b) applies based on proximity to “land included in such proposed change”; land not rezoned is not counted for triggering the protest-petition supermajority.
- The right to compel a supermajority vote depends on distance from land affected by the zoning change, not on the configuration of parcel boundaries outside the rezoned area.
- For SEQRA challenges to legislative rezoning, the CPLR 217(1) four-month period generally runs from adoption of the rezoning, because concrete injury occurs upon enactment rather than completion of SEQRA paperwork alone.
- SEQRA requires a “hard look” and a reasoned explanation; for area-wide rezoning, a generic EIS may address impacts at a programmatic level and defer detailed design of mitigation to later, site-specific review, so long as the record supports the agency’s conclusions.
- Courts uphold SEQRA determinations where the record shows consideration of relevant environmental concerns and the decision is not arbitrary or capricious.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the rezoning, holding that protest-petition measurements run from the rezoned area’s boundary, that a SEQRA-based challenge accrued upon enactment of the rezoning, and that the town’s generic EIS traffic analysis and mitigation approach satisfied SEQRA.


Matter of Eadie v. Town Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush, 7 N.Y.3d 306, 854 N.E.2d 464 (N.Y. 2006)