Sun Co. v. City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency
209 A.D.2d 34, 625 N.Y.S.2d 371 (1995)
Rule of Law:
A municipal industrial development agency undertaking an eminent domain action for urban redevelopment must comply fully with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by conducting a comprehensive environmental review that considers the cumulative impacts of all related projects within a long-range plan, analyzes reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, and addresses direct environmental consequences like the relocation of existing facilities.
Facts:
- In 1987, the City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency (SIDA) and the City of Syracuse announced a Master Plan for redevelopment of approximately 800 acres of land known as the 'Lakefront Area,' including a proposed retail shopping mall, lakefront park, light industrial trade zone, housing, marina, and office park.
- In 1990, Pyramid Companies completed construction of 'Carousel Center,' a retail mall in the northern portion of the Lakefront Area, which SIDA had helped finance.
- In December 1991, the Syracuse Office of Lakefront Development issued an 'Action Plan for the Syracuse Lakefront,' which identified the 'Solar Street Corridor' (containing the proposed Carousel Landing site) as one of four key development areas within the broader Lakefront Area.
- On September 18, 1992, SIDA and Pyramid entered into a 'Preferred Developer Agreement' designating Pyramid as the preferred developer for the Carousel Landing Project, a retail complex of at least 350,000 square feet to be constructed on property owned by the petitioners.
- Under the Preferred Developer Agreement, Pyramid undertook certain financial obligations, including paying all costs associated with property acquisition and SEQRA review, and SIDA agreed to acquire 'at least those properties' Pyramid committed to for the project.
- In July 1993, representatives of the Oil Companies (Sun, Atlantic, Citgo, Mobil) met with City Officials to propose an alternative plan to consolidate their petroleum facilities on 33 acres within Oil City, but this plan was rejected on August 3, 1993, with the City citing its binding Preferred Developer Agreement with Pyramid.
- Petitioners (Sun, Atlantic, Citgo, Mobil, and Upstate Milk Cooperatives, Inc.) own properties in the 'Oil City' area near Onondaga Lake that SIDA sought to condemn for the Carousel Landing Project.
Procedural Posture:
- In March 1988, Mobil Oil Corporation challenged SIDA's determination regarding the Carousel Center project, raising grounds including improper segmentation of environmental review; the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, on grounds that Mobil lacked standing.
- The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the dismissal of Mobil Oil Corporation's petition.
- In a prior proceeding related to the Carousel Landing Project, the Oil Companies moved for a preliminary injunction in Supreme Court, which was denied, and their complaint was dismissed as premature.
- In that prior proceeding, the Supreme Court granted SIDA’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Oil Companies from restraining SIDA’s agents from entering upon petitioners’ property for inspection purposes.
- The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions in that prior proceeding (Sun Co. v City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 197 AD2d 912).
- Petitioners (Sun, Atlantic, Citgo, Mobil, and Upstate Milk Cooperatives, Inc.) commenced the current proceedings in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, pursuant to EDPL 207, seeking annulment of SIDA’s determination to condemn their properties and challenging the adequacy of the environmental review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency's (SIDA) determination to condemn properties for the Carousel Landing Project comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requirements for environmental review, considering proper segmentation, analysis of alternatives, and environmental impacts of relocation?
Opinions:
Majority - Boehm, J.
No, SIDA's determination to condemn properties for the Carousel Landing Project did not comply with SEQRA because its environmental review was improperly segmented, failed to consider direct environmental impacts of relocation, and precluded meaningful consideration of reasonable alternatives. The court found that SIDA improperly segmented its environmental review by focusing solely on the Carousel Landing Project, rather than considering its cumulative effects as an integral part of the broader 1987 Lakefront Area Master Plan and the 1991 Lakefront Action Plan. SEQRA requires a lead agency to consider the cumulative effect of other simultaneous or subsequent actions included in any long-range plan, emphasizing that considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQRA. The plan for developing the entire Lakefront Area and its various uses was deemed 'clearly reasonably related' to the Carousel Landing Project, making a narrow, site-specific review impermissible segmentation. SIDA also failed to consider the environmental impacts associated with relocating the petroleum supply pipelines and constructing new terminal facilities for the Oil Companies, dismissing these as 'speculative.' The court held that these impacts constituted a 'primary impact of the project' and should have been addressed in the environmental review. Furthermore, SIDA failed to analyze reasonable alternatives to the Carousel Landing Project, specifically the proposal by the Oil Companies to consolidate their facilities on a portion of the site. The court noted that the Preferred Developer Agreement, which bound SIDA to Pyramid's project, 'precluded meaningful consideration of other alternatives,' thereby constituting a clear failure to comply with SEQRA's requirement to discuss and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The court rejected petitioners' other contentions, finding the statutory condemnation scheme constitutional, the private funding mechanism for compensation adequate, and the project exempt from certain General Municipal Law prohibitions as it was located in a 'highly distressed area.' It also found no improper delegation of eminent domain power, as SIDA retained control over the ultimate condemnation decision. Lastly, SIDA's findings on traffic and air quality impacts were deemed sufficient, as agencies may reasonably rely on consultant advice and scientific unanimity is not required.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the procedural and substantive requirements of SEQRA, particularly concerning urban redevelopment projects involving eminent domain. It clarifies that even if a project serves a public purpose and an agency retains ultimate eminent domain power, the environmental review process must be robust, comprehensive, and genuinely consider alternatives and cumulative impacts. The ruling acts as a check on agencies that might prioritize private developer agreements over thorough environmental assessment, ensuring that long-term, interconnected development plans are reviewed holistically rather than in fragmented pieces. It emphasizes that a 'binding' agreement with a private developer cannot circumvent the statutory obligation to consider alternatives in the SEQRA process.
