| Matter of Village of Canajoharie v Planning Bd. of Town ofFlorida |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05249 [63 AD3d 1498] |
| June 25, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Village of Canajoharie, Appellant, v PlanningBoard of the Town of Florida et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Hodgson Russ, L.L.P., Buffalo (Daniel Spitzer of counsel), for Montgomery CountyIndustrial Development Agency, respondent. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Joseph Koczaja of counsel), for EmpireState Development Corporation, respondent. Hancock & Estabrook, L.L.P., Syracuse (Janet D. Callahan of counsel), for Hero Group, Inc.and another, respondents.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Catena, J.), entered October21, 2008 in Montgomery County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a combinedproceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, to review, amongother things, a determination of respondent Planning Board of the Town of Florida approving thesite plan application of respondents Hero Group, Inc. and Beech-Nut Nutrition Group.
In 2007, Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation (sued as Beech-Nut Nutrition Group)[FN1]made a [*2]business decision to consolidate operations from itsthree existing facilities to one central location. At this time, Beech-Nut operated twomanufacturing facilities in Montgomery County—one in the Village of Canajoharie andone in the Town of Fort Plain—and a corporate headquarters in Missouri. WhileBeech-Nut considered many options, including the option of relocating outside of New York, itultimately decided to consolidate operations within New York and indeed within MontgomeryCounty; that is, it endeavored to build a new facility in a business park owned by respondentMontgomery County Industrial Development Agency (hereinafter IDA) and located in the Townof Florida, Montgomery County.
To that end, Beech-Nut sought and received funding for the project from respondent EmpireState Development Corporation and thereafter enlisted the assistance of the IDA in making theproject feasible. In its application to the IDA, Beech-Nut detailed its corporate decision toconsolidate and relocate (i.e., to preserve its competitive position, meet expanding productionneeds and maintain compliance with stringent manufacturing and safety requirements) andfurther detailed the infeasibility of consolidating and expanding at the Canajoharie facility itself(i.e., the 115-year-old facility was in great need of modernization, had recently been damaged bya flood and had an extremely limited physical footprint). Beech-Nut further detailed itsexploration of relocating its operations outside of New York.
In the meantime, over the course of many months, review of the project under the StateEnvironmental Quality Review Act (see ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) proceeded,with respondent Planning Board of the Town of Florida acting as the lead agency (seeECL 8-0111 [6]; 6 NYCRR 617.2 [u]). In addition, a payment in lieu of tax (hereinafter PILOT)agreement and lease were eventually entered into between Beech-Nut and the IDA providingadditional financial assistance for the project. Following a May 15, 2008 special meeting of thePlanning Board, the project went forward and construction commenced.[FN2]
Petitioner commenced this combined declaratory judgment action/CPLR article 78proceeding alleging various violations of SEQRA and the General Municipal Law. In addition toseeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining any work on theproject, petitioner sought a declaration that the site plan approval and findings statements for theproject were invalid, that the PILOT and lease agreements were invalid and that the financingassistance package from Empire State Development was invalid. Following a hearing, therequest for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief was denied. Thereafter, SupremeCourt dismissed the entire petition on various alternative grounds, including standing, promptingthis appeal. We now affirm.
In its amended petition, petitioner alleged that the Planning Board failed to comply with[*3]SEQRA by illegally segmenting the abandonment of thefacility in Canajoharie from the relocation project, by failing to take a hard look at the alternativeof either no action or renovation of the facility in Canajoharie and by failing to take a hard lookat measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts on it. The amended petition furtheralleges that the IDA and Empire State Development, as involved agencies in the relocationproject, also violated SEQRA. We find that all claims based on alleged SEQRA violations wereproperly dismissed on standing grounds.
Generally, standing to challenge compliance with SEQRA turns on a showing by thechallenger that it has sustained an injury-in-fact different from that of the public at large and onethat falls within the zone of interest protected by SEQRA (see Society of Plastics Indus. vCounty of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 777 [1991]). A municipality, such as petitioner, "mustdemonstrate how its personal or property rights, either personally or in a representative capacity,will be directly and specifically affected apart from any damage suffered by the public at large"(Matter of Saratoga Lake Protection &Improvement Dist. v Department of Pub. Works of City of Saratoga Springs, 46 AD3d979, 983 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 706 [2008] [internal quotation marks andcitation omitted]). Moreover, with respect to SEQRA claims in particular, a challenger "mustdemonstrate that it will suffer an injury that is environmental and not solely economic in nature"(Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 76 NY2d 428, 433 [1990]).
Even viewing the allegations in the amended petition in a light most favorable to it (see e.g. Matter of Powers v De Groodt,43 AD3d 509, 513 [2007]), petitioner failed to make any showing that it would indeedsuffer a specific or direct environmental harm as a result of the proposed project (see Matterof Mobil Oil Corp. v Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 76 NY2d at 433-434).[FN3]Rather, the amended petition contains nothing more than allegations of potential economic harm,ranging from the loss of employment, commercial activity and sales tax revenue, to negativeimpacts on population, housing values and resources, to increased tax burdens for all remainingproperty owners. To this end, even the allegations of economic harm do not arise from theproposed project itself but, rather, from Beech-Nut's business decision to transfer allmanufacturing and corporate operations to Florida, including operations in Canajoharie. Since"economic injury [alone] does not confer standing to sue under SEQRA" (Society of PlasticsIndus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d at 777), petitioner lacked standing to challenge theadequacy of the SEQRA process concerning the proposed project in Florida (see Matter of Widewaters Rte. 11 PotsdamCo., LLC v Town of Potsdam, 51 AD3d 1292, 1294 [2008]; Matter of Nature'sTrees v County of Suffolk, 293 AD2d 543, 544 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 608[2002]; Matter of Nature's Trees v County of Nassau, 293 AD2d 544, 545-546 [2002],lv denied 98 NY2d 608 [2002]; Matter of Blue Lawn v County of Westchester,293 AD2d 532, 533 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 607 [2002]; Matter of Bridon RealtyCo. v Town Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 250 AD2d 677, 677-678 [1998], lv denied92 NY2d 813 [1998]; Matter of Valhalla Union Free School Dist. v Board of Legislators ofCounty of Westchester, 183 AD2d 771, 772-773 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 758[1992]).[*4]
Next, as petitioner was not an "[a]ffected taxjurisdiction" (General Municipal Law § 854 [16]), it cannot challenge the PILOTagreement as violating General Municipal Law § 859-a (3) and § 874 (4) (a). As toits challenge to the PILOT and lease agreements as violating the antipirating provisions ofGeneral Municipal Law § 862, we find that this claim was also properly dismissed.Although the IDA only generally noted that the project will promote and maintain jobs in NewYork, it specifically determined that the relocation project was "reasonably necessary to preservethe competitive position" of Beech-Nut in its industry (General Municipal Law § 862).Supreme Court properly rejected petitioner's conclusory and unsupported allegations that thisfinding is unsupported by the record and/or arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Main Seneca Corp. v ErieCounty Indus. Dev. Agency, 12 AD3d 1113, 1114 [2004]; cf. Matter of MainSeneca Corp. v Town of Amherst Indus. Dev. Agency, 100 NY2d 246, 251-252 [2003]).
Finally, petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent properly before us, have beenreviewed and found to be without merit.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.
Footnote 1: Beech-Nut NutritionCorporation is an affiliated subsidiary of respondent Hero Group, Inc. and the two companies arereferenced in various collective ways throughout the record. This decision will reference themcollectively as Beech-Nut.
Footnote 2: While the minutes of thisspecial meeting clearly reflect that subdivision approval was granted and that conditions to thesite plan were approved, the minutes do not clearly reflect that the site plan itself was approved.Nevertheless, it is undisputed that, following this meeting, all involved agencies and partiesproceeded with the project.
Footnote 3: Because Canajoharie is locatedapproximately 20 miles from the project, it most certainly is not presumptively aggrieved by it(see Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N.Hempstead, 69 NY2d 406, 413-414 [1987]).