New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Commissioner's Determination of Lead Agency Under Article 8

of the Environmental Conservation Law

ACTION:         Proposed annexation of territory consisting of approximately 197 acres from the Village of Woodbury to the co-terminus Village of Kiryas Joel and Town of Palm Tree, Orange County, New York

DISPUTING AGENCIES: The Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel and Coterminus Town of Palm Tree (Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree)1 v. Village Board of Trustees of the Village of Woodbury and the Town Board of the Town of Woodbury (Woodbury).

I have been asked to designate a lead agency to conduct an environmental review under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR; Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law [ECL], with implementing regulations at Part 617 of Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York [6 NYCRR Part 617]). The review is for a proposed landowner-initiated annexation of territory by the coterminous Village of Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree from the Village of Woodbury and the Town of Woodbury (Woodbury).2  The territory is comprised of five tax lots totaling approximately 197 acres - all located within the Village of Woodbury.

This designation of Woodbury as lead agency is based on my finding that it has the broadest governmental powers to investigate the potential impacts of the proposed annexation.

 ACTION AND SITE

The action consists of a landowner-initiated annexation petition by Acres Road Holding LLC pursuant to General Municipal Law Article 17 (relating to municipal annexation). If the annexation petition is successful, the lands that are the subject of the annexation petition -which are presently part of the Village of Woodbury -would become part of the territory of Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree. While the action does not include a specific development plan, annexation would enable Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree to extend municipal infrastructure and community services to the annexed lands, including water service, schools, police and fire protection service. Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree affirms that future development, should the annexation be approved, will continue in the same nature and use as the area of Kiryas Joel adjoining the territory (e.g. residential, compact, high-density development consistent with Kiryas Joel's comprehensive plan). If an annexation were to occur, zoning authority for the annexed lands would be transferred from the Village of Woodbury to Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree. Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree's zoning law includes two districts: Residential (R) and Commercial (C). According to Woodbury, the lands proposed to be annexed primarily consists of undeveloped land, a portion of which is being farmed. Information contained in the environmental assessment form prepared for this action identifies the parcels as containing approximately 8 acres of roads, buildings or other impervious surfaces, with the remainder consisting of approximately 104 forested acres, 77 acres of meadows, grassland or brushland, 5 acres of surface water features, and 2 acres of wetland. The territory directly abuts Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree along the westerly boundary line of Woodbury and easterly boundary line of Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree.

 REGULATORY SETTING

The determination of public interet under General Municipal Law (GML) §711, which municipalities are required to make before granting or den ying an annexation petition, is subject to SEQR, as discussed in footnote 2. City Council of City of Watervliet v. Town Board of the Town of Colonie, 3 NY3d 508 (2004).3 Here, under GML §711, all competing agencies for lead agency must make the determination of public interest required by the statute and are therefore involved agencies under SEQR. See also, NY Const. art. IX, § 1(d).

Woodbury currently has zoning authority over the lands that are proposed to be annexed. Woodbury zoned the lands for single-family homes on 2-acre lots (Residential 2-acre [R2]) and provides municipal services including highway, firefighting, and lighting services.

 Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree does not have land use jurisdiction over the lands that are proposed to be annexed, is not a property owner of any of the parcels and does not currently provide these lands with any municipal services.

 DISCUSSION

In resolving a lead agency dispute under SEQR, I am guided by the statute (which provides that the lead agency shall be the agency principally responsible for carrying out or approving the action [ECL 8-8-0111(6)]) and the regulatory criteria (that implements the statute) for determining lead agency (6 NYCRR §617.6 [b] [5] [v]), which asks the following three questions listed in order of importance:4

(a) whether the anticipated impacts of the action being considered are primarily of statewide, regional, or local significance (i.e., if such impacts are of primarily local significance, all other considerations being equal, the local agency involved will be lead agency);

(b) which agency has the broadest governmental powers to investigate the impacts of the proposed action; and

(c) which agency has the greatest capability to provide the most thorough environmental assessment of the proposed action.

 In annexation disputes, the jurisdictional distinctions are often fine grained. "In past decisions, the key decisional factor has been the ability of a municipality to exercise its legislative authority over the use and occupancy of the subject parcel." Lead Agency Dispute: Town of Mohawk Town Board v. Fulton County Board of Supervisors v. Montgomery County Legislature v. City of Johnstown, p.3, May 6, 2016. The SEQR

Handbook says, "...All other considerations being equal, the most logical choice for lead agency is the agency that has had the longest standing jurisdiction within the area. This can be the municipality from which the annexed parcel may be taken, unless the municipality proposing the annexation into its territory has a substantial proprietary or ownership interest in the lands it seeks to annex. Ultimately, however, the lead agency decision here will be on a case-by-case basis weighing the three factors set forth in the regulations." SEQR Handbook, p. 182 (Fourth Ed. 2020), available at https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf.

 For example, in six of the past Commissioner lead agency disputes, where my predecessors favored the annexing municipality, the annexing municipality owned all or part of the property that was the subject of the annexation petition. See Commissioner's Lead Agency dispute decisions in City of Plattsburgh City Council v. Town Board of the Town of Plattsburgh, May 15, 2019; City of Jamestown City Council v. Town of Ellicott Town Council, August 24, 2017; Town Board of the Town of Granby v. Common Council of the City of Fulton, October 12, 2012; Town of Potsdam v. Village of Potsdam, August 18, 2009; Town of North Greenbush v. City of Rensselaer, September 25, 2008; Town Board of the Town of Queensbury v. City Council of the City of Glens Falls, April 14, 1997; and City of Plattsburgh Common Council v. Town of Plattsburgh Town Board, 1/15/1992.

 A. FIRST CRITERION

Here, both sides agree that the potential impacts of the annexation are primarily local and both disputing agencies are local agencies. If Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree were to annex the property, Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree would most likely rezone the property to permit higher density development and extend its municipal sewer and water to facilitate that development. Impacts would include loss of farmland and open space. There would be the typical suite of impacts from high density development and construction-related impacts including noise, dust and traffic. Woodbury argues that it would potentially bear greater potential impacts if the lands were to be annexed because it has a larger geographic area under its jurisdiction than Kiryas Joel. In fact, the territory, if annexed to Kiryas Joel would result in the lands being somewhat of a peninsula, primarily surrounded by the Village of Woodbury. As a result, the proposal would increase the length of the existing municipal boundary between the two municipalities (at the location of the proposed annexation) by over three times within the Village of Woodbury, thereby increasing the contrast in adjacent land uses expected between the two municipalities.5 Woodbury's current zoning reflects its intent to maintain future land use of the subject parcels as low-density, residential development, which is in substantial contrast to the likely development if the parcels are annexed and rezoned by Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree.

 I conclude that the impacts of the proposed action would be primarily of local significance. In this regard, DEC's regulations state that"... if such impacts are of primarily local significance, all other considerations being equal, the local agency involved will be lead agency." 6 NYCRR §617.6(b)(5)(v)(a).

 While Woodbury persuasively argues that the "local" impacts are potentially greater within Woodbury, given that both disputing agencies are local, the first criterion offers no significant distinction as to which of the disputing agencies should serve as lead agency for this SEQR review. See, e.g., Commissioner's Lead Agency Dispute: Town of Mohawk Town Board v. Fulton County Board of Supervisors v. Montgomery County Legislature v. City of Johnstown, May 6, 2016 (Mohawk v. Fulton County).

 B. SECOND CRITERION

Woodbury's current zoning authority is broader than the public interest standard set out in GML §711 for purposes of investigating the impacts of the proposed annexation since zoning dictates the allowable uses of land and permissible density. Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree's authority at the present time is limited to the consideration of the impacts from the pending annexation pursuant to the overall public interest standard set out in GML §711 since it does not own any of the lands nor does it provide municipal services to them.

Here, while Kiryas Joel has stated it has agreements in place to provide public water service to the parcels, there are no proposed or existing developments associated with these lands. Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree is not currently required to satisfy any existing or anticipated water needs. In short, Woodbury's breadth of jurisdiction without the annexation having occurred is far greater than that of Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree.

The second criterion therefore favors the Woodbury to act as lead agency. Additionally, Woodbury has the longest standing jurisdiction and Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree has no proprietary interest in the lands proposed to be annexed. See, Commissioner's Lead Agency Dispute: Town of Mohawk Town Board v. Fulton County ("The Fulton County Board of Supervisors ...no ownership or county infrastructure associated with the

parcels."). Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree rely on the Commissioner's lead agency dispute decision in Town of Monroe Town Board of the Town of Monroe v. the Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joe/ Board of Trustees, January 28, 2015. That decision relied on the second criteria, that is "which agency has the broadest governmental powers to investigate the impacts of the proposed action." Although Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree did not have a property interest in the lands it proposed to annex, it was already providing public water to two developments that were the subject of the annexation plan. Here, while Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree expects to provide water and sewer service to the annexed parcels of land should it be annexed it does not currently provide such services. In short, there is an important distinction between the Commissioner's 2015 decision in Kiryas Joel and the current dispute, that is Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree has no existing jurisdictional connection to the lands proposed to be annexed.

Finally, Kiryas Joel/Town of Palm Tree argue.that most of the annexation lead agency dispute decisions have favored the annexing municipality. While that statement is true, in those decisions the annexing municipality had a significant governmental interest in the lands that were proposed to be annexed, which is not present here.

 C. THIRD CRITERION

The third criterion asks which agency has the greatest capability for providing the most thorough environmental assessment of the proposed action. Both parties to this dispute argue that they possess the capability to conduct a SEQR review for the annexation. Woodbury says it has a superior ability to do so because of its existing land use authority over the lands. Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree points to the review it previously undertook for the annexation that was the subject of the lead agency dispute in 2015. Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree also points to other reviews it has undertaken. I nonetheless find that both parties have a similar ability to conduct the environmental review. I find, therefore, that this criterion favors neither Woodbury nor Kiryas Joel to serve in the role of lead agencу.

 FINDING

After considering the relevant criteria under 6 NYCRR subparagraph 617.6 (b) (5) (v), 1 conclude that Woodbury should be designated as the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed annexation based on the second criteria. This designation in no way changes or diminishes the responsibilities or authority of the other involved and interested agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree states that it would fully engage Woodbury in the SEQR process should it be designated as lead agency and that it would prepare an environmental impact statement. Here, I expect Woodbury to fully involve Kiryas Joel/Palm Tree in its SEQR process for the proposed annexation, both as an involved agency and in the interest of intermunicipal  comity.

 Amanda Lefton, Commissioner, Dated: October 14 2025, Albany, New York