This post was authored by Sebastian Perez, JD, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Touro Law Center
In 1994, John Reeve and Sandra Reeve (the “Reeves”) acquired property in the Town of Riverhead (the “Subject Property”). Subsequently, in 2013, the Reeves constructed a dock, ramps, and floats on a portion of the Subject Property, following the issuance of building permits and a certificate of occupancy. However, the petitioners appealed against the legality of the permits, leading the Town of Riverhead Zoning Board of Appeals (the “ZBA”) to declare the construction unauthorized. In response to the illegal construction ruling, the Reeves submitted the Application which sought to divide the property into two separate lots. The Planning Board approved the Application, classifying it as a Type II action under SEQRA which deemed it to require no additional environmental review.
On review, the Supreme Court found that the Planning Board’s classification of the application as a Type II action was arbitrary and capricious under SEQRA. The court determined that the Planning Board failed to comply with the required procedures and did not adequately address the environmental concerns associated with the proposed subdivision. SEQRA regulations require that agencies engage in an initial review and classification of proposed actions as Type I, Type II, or Unlisted. However, the Planning Board’s conclusory determination lacked a rational basis, as neither the Town Code nor the SEQRA regulations listed a minor subdivision as a Type II action at the time of the decision. Furthermore, the Planning Board’s Staff Report identified environmental concerns related to the application, indicating that a proper review was warranted.
Therefore, the Court affirmed the annulment of the Planning Board’s determination.
Andes v Planning Board of the Town of Riverhead, 2023 WL 3856139 (NYAD 2 Dept. 6/7/2023).