If New York lawmakers don”™t expedite the state”™s lengthy environmental review process for real estate developments, they risk losing business to neighboring states like Connecticut, panelists warned at a recent roundtable.
Nearly every one of the seven executives who participated in “The Real State of Real Estate” panel, hosted by the Business Journal Sept. 8, cited inefficiencies in the implementation of New York”™s State Environmental Quality Review Act ”“ or SEQRA ”“ as having a negative impact on businesses looking to develop property within the state.
The panelists represented companies in Westchester and Fairfield counties that work in or deal with commercial real estate (see page 24 for more on the panel).
Â
In New York, ”˜much more difficult”™
A company looking to develop property in Connecticut is required to submit an “environmental impact evaluation” to the municipal government and can expect a decision within 90 days in most cases.
Contrast that with New York state, where municipalities can sometimes spend months debating whether a town council or planning board will act as lead agency for a particular development proposal ”“ and that is but the first step in the process.
Under SEQRA, developers are first required to complete an environmental assessment form and to determine whether there is a possibility of “significant adverse impacts” on the environment. If findings show that possibility, the applicant must then prepare a draft “environmental impact statement” that is subsequently reviewed by the local government and public.
“In many ways I think the New York process is set up to say ”˜no”™ instead of ”˜yes,”™” said Michael Freimuth, development commissioner for the city of New Rochelle, N.Y., in a separate conversation with the Business Journal. Freimuth previously was director of the offices of Economic Development and of Intergovernmental Affairs for the city of Stamford, and director of the Office of Planning and Economic Development for the city of Bridgeport.
“The difference is the process, not so much the information requested,” he said. “In Connecticut they want to know about traffic and environmental and wetland ”¦ It”™s not so much the data, per se, or the information ”“ it”™s how it”™s collected, delivered and debated that makes the New York process so much more difficult.”
”˜Uncertainty ”¦ is a major barrier”™
At the Sept. 8 discussion, panelists harkened back to the 1970s and 1980s when, they said, town government officials would go out of their way to ensure that major companies looking to have a presence in Westchester would not have to face lengthy review processes.
When Texaco decided to build its headquarters in Harrison, N.Y., in 1977, the company “could have located anywhere,” said Alfred DelBello, who was then Westchester”™s county executive and is currently a partner in the White Plains law firm DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise and Wiederkehr L.L.P.
DelBello said Texaco”™s then-CEO John McKinley told him he was most impressed with the maturity of New York”™s relationship with the corporate world.
“I thought it was very telling when they said it”™s a mature state with regard to its relationship with businesses,” he said. “And I think there, there”™s been such dramatic change.”
In New York, municipal governments are solely responsible for enforcing SEQRA and the review process of any development moves ahead at their discretion, sometimes taking as many as four of five years before a decision is rendered.
The Connecticut statute, on the other hand, includes specific time limits for each step of the environmental review process. “If you don”™t rule per se on a matter, it”™s presumed to be approved, forcing the land use boards to act in a timely way,” Freimuth said. “In the case of New York ”¦ such uncertainty and lack of time discipline is a major barrier.”
Keeping the environment in sight
One of the biggest distinctions between the two states”™ environmental review policies relates to developments in urban areas. In New York, developers must go through the same lengthy review process in cities as they would in suburban areas, despite the likelihood that any environmental barriers to development in cities would already have been addressed.
“(SEQRA) doesn”™t presume, for instance, that in an urban area the impacts are already there and are presumably negligible,” Freimuth said. In Connecticut, the state”™s Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) contains certain exceptions for city developments. “That”™s because urban areas have the infrastructure,” Freimuth said.
John R. Nolon, a professor at Pace Law School who specializes in environmental policy and land use, agreed on the need for streamlining the SEQRA process as it relates to urban developments, but cautioned against removing aspects of the law that would result in environmentally-unsound projects.
“Development that is along transportation (lines) or corridors that provide workforce housing that is not on wetlands or flood plains can be ”“ with some reform ”“ exempted from SEQRA,” he said, citing as examples the Platinum Mile stretch along Interstate 287 and developments in any of Westchester”™s cities. “The problem with trying to reform SEQRA is that there are some developments that are probably going to be hurtful to the environment. ”¦ We don”™t want more development that”™s going to cause more flooding.”
Hello,
I agree with what you are saying and would like to point out that alot of these envirnmental laws and town codes are not even constitutional, and are being used to deprive homeowners and business of there constitutional rights to due process of law. Most of these laws are very vague, unclear to a lay person like myself.
In fact I am doing a Civil Rights case in the Southern District Court on this very topic. I was wondering if you could take a look at my complaint and tell me what you think? I’m not a lawyer but Im doing it Pro Se. Its tough but you have to stand up for what you believe in I feel.Regards,Rob