Opinion
April 15, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court (Rumsey, J.).
Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul respondent's enactment of Local Laws, 1998, No. 3 of the Town of Ithaca, which amended the Town of Ithaca's zoning map to permit construction of a 56-unit apartment facility known as Mecklenberg Heights Apartments, on the ground that it was enacted in violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8) (hereinafter SEQRA). Supreme Court granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition, concluding that petitioners failed to join a necessary party, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, and that mandatory joinder would not be ordered because the claim was otherwise time barred. Petitioners appeal.
We affirm. Upon receipt of the developer's petition for rezoning, site plan approval and subdivision approval, respondent designated its Planning Board as lead agency for the purpose of SEQRA review. The Planning Board issued a negative declaration of environmental significance which was filed with the Town Clerk on February 5, 1998. Its resolution giving preliminary site plan and subdivision approval to the project, and recommending adoption of a rezoning resolution by respondent, was filed with the Town Clerk on March 5, 1998. The rezoning was effected with the passage of Local Laws, 1998, No. 3 of the Town of Ithaca on March 30, 1998. This proceeding was commenced on May 14, 1998.
Although petitioners' challenge was ostensibly directed at Local Law No. 3, the actual basis of their claim is the alleged impropriety of the SEQRA review conducted by the Planning Board. It is well settled that a court may not adjudicate a dispute raised in a CPLR article 78 proceeding unless the governmental agency which performed the challenged action is a party thereto ( see, Matter of Commco, Inc. v. Amelkin, 62 N.Y.2d 260, 263; Matter of Garden City Ctr. Assocs. v. Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 193 A.D.2d 740, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 658; Matter of Watt v. Town of Gaines, 140 A.D.2d 947, lv dismissed, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 1040; Phillips v. Village of Oriskany, 57 A.D.2d 110, 113; Matter of D.J.R. Dev. Corp. v. Town Bd., 47 A.D.2d 986). Consequently, the Planning Board was a necessary party to this proceeding.
Further, Supreme Court properly declined to order joinder of the Planning Board pursuant to CPLR 1001 (b) as the proceeding was in any event untimely commenced. The governing Statute of Limitations is found in Town Law § 274-a (11), under which a proceeding to review a board decision must be commenced within 30 days after the filing of such decision in the office of the town clerk. Where the challenged action relates to SEQRA review, the limitations period commences with the filing of a decision which represents the final determination of SEQRA issues, notwithstanding the fact that such determination may be embodied in preliminary or conditional plan approvals ( see, Matter of Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy. v. Planning Bd., 78 N.Y.2d 608, 613; see also, Matter of Purchase Envtl. Protective Assn. v. Town Bd., 207 A.D.2d 351, 352; Matter of Crepeau v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 195 A.D.2d 919, 920; Matter of Parker v. Town of Gardiner Planning Bd., 184 A.D.2d 937, 939, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 761; Matter of Hickey v. Planning Bd., 173 A.D.2d 1086, 1088). This rule is consonant with the goals of identifying environmental issues and resolving them with finality as early as possible in the planning process ( see, Matter of Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy. v. Planning Bd., supra, at 615). Here, as noted, the essence of petitioners' claim concerns the SEQRA review conducted by the Planning Board, which was completed upon the issuance of the negative declaration. The limitations period was triggered by the filing of the negative declaration on February 5, 1998. This proceeding, commenced on May 14, 1998, was therefore untimely.
Cardona, P. J., Yesawich Jr., Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.