Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reasoned Elaboration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board trainer outlines 'significance' and the reasoned elaboration standard
Summary
Trainer emphasized that boards must identify relevant environmental issues, take a 'hard look,' and produce a written reasoned elaboration supporting a negative declaration; cited Merson v. McNally as precedent on project evolution during review.
The presenter explained the legal standard the courts use when reviewing SECRA determinations: identify relevant environmental issues, take a hard look at them, and produce a reasoned elaboration documenting the board's rationale. "Did you identify the relevant environmental issues involved with the project? Did you take a hard, quote unquote, hard look at those issues? And did you make a reasoned elaboration for your determination?" the presenter asked.
The trainer also said projects can evolve during review and pointed to Merson v. McNally (1997) as an appellate decision recognizing that a determination should reflect the project 'as it exists at that time.' The presenter used an example where an initial 100-unit proposal could be reduced to 60 units in response to traffic concerns, which might then allow a negative declaration rather than an EIS.
