Matter of Rochester Eastside Residents for Appropriate Development, Inc. v. City of Rochester

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held that petitioners had standing to challenge a negative declaration issued under SEQRA for a proposed ALDI supermarket. The court reversed the dismissal of the CPLR article 78 proceeding, annulled the negative declaration, and vacated related zoning variances and a special use permit because the declaration did not adequately address preexisting soil contamination.

Holdings

1. Igatopsfy, LLC had standing because it owned property less than 300 feet from the proposed project and was therefore arguably within SEQRA's zone of interests; adverse effect or aggrievement could be inferred from proximity without pleading and proving special damage.
2. RERAD had associational or organizational standing because two of its members owned property within the relevant proximity to the project and RERAD established the other requirements for organizational standing.
3. The negative declaration was invalid because it contained no findings or reasoned elaboration addressing the undisputed preexisting soil contamination on the project site.
4. The developer's promise to remediate the soil contamination did not absolve the lead agency of its SEQRA obligations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Igatopsfy, LLC and Rochester Eastside Residents for Appropriate Development, Inc. had standing to challenge the SEQRA negative declaration.
2. Whether the SEQRA negative declaration was invalid because it failed to provide a written, reasoned elaboration addressing preexisting soil contamination on the project site.
3. Whether the developer's promise to remediate the contamination excused the lead agency's SEQRA obligations.

Disposition

reversed