Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Craftech Industries Inc. v. Jorling
Citations: 218 A.D.2d 898; 630 N.Y.S.2d 424; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8655
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; August 10, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made regarding a judgment from the Supreme Court of Albany County, which dismissed a petitioner’s application under CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) amending the freshwater wetlands map for Columbia County. The petitioner argued that the DEC failed to provide interested parties with a public hearing before amending the wetlands map, and claimed the decision was arbitrary and capricious due to several reasons: lack of proof that the areas included in the amendment were dominated by wetlands vegetation, failure to consider a soil survey for boundary delineation, and noncompliance with the Freshwater Wetlands Mapping Technical Methods Statement. The petitioner operates a manufacturing plant in Hudson, Columbia County, and contested the DEC's amendment of the eastern boundary of wetland HN-2, which followed a DEC field inspection that identified wetlands vegetation. The DEC had previously ticketed the petitioner for placing fill without a permit in what they identified as a wetland. The amendment process began after DEC verified the wetland boundary and initiated formal procedures to update the final wetlands map, which included notifying the petitioner and other affected landowners, and publishing notices for public comment. The DEC received objections, including those from the petitioner, but ultimately recommended the amendment, which was adopted on October 26, 1993, and took effect on November 17, 1993. The court concluded that the DEC's classification of the amendment as a minor adjustment fell within its authority to revise wetlands boundaries and determined that no public hearing was necessary for such adjustments. The court emphasized that it would defer to the agency's expertise unless the agency's interpretation lacked a reasonable basis. The notice requirement for notifying each owner of record about a minor adjustment does not necessitate a public hearing unless deemed appropriate by the respondent. An amendment extended the boundary of wetland HN-2 by 200 feet, totaling 0.23 acres. The respondent's determination that a public hearing was unnecessary and that written comments were adequate was found to be rational. The written procedure allowed the petitioner to present arguments, which the respondent addressed. In response to the petitioner’s claim that the amendment was arbitrary and capricious, it was noted that wetlands vegetation was present in a channel on the petitioner’s property, adjacent to the existing wetland boundary. The boundary was marked at the distinct edge of the wetland vegetation, consistent with the definition of wetland boundaries. The absence of a transition zone between wetlands and uplands eliminated the need for special delineation procedures. A DEC employee's memorandum provided substantial evidence supporting the respondent's decision. The petitioner's assertion that soil surveys should be examined was rejected as unwarranted. The judgment was affirmed without costs.