IN RE: LONG ISLAND PINE BARRENS SOCIETY (2002)

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent Town Board of the Town of Riverhead, dated February 1, 2000, granting a zoning change and site approval for the development of property in Baiting Hollow, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered November 6, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, and the determination is annulled.

 We agree with the petitioners' contention that, under the circumstances presented here, the Town Board of the Town of Riverhead (hereinafter the Town Board) improperly segmented the review process mandated by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA, ECL art. 8).   The rezoning at issue was an integral part of a “Residential Golf” development (see, Matter of Citizens Concerned for Harlem Val. Envt. v. Town Bd. of Town of Amenia, 264 A.D.2d 394, 694 N.Y.S.2d 108;  Matter of Scenic Hudson v. Town of Fishkill Town Bd., 258 A.D.2d 654, 685 N.Y.S.2d 777;  Matter of Long Is. Pine Barrens Soc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 204 A.D.2d 548, 611 N.Y.S.2d 917;  Matter of Schultz v. Jorling, 164 A.D.2d 252, 255-256, 563 N.Y.S.2d 876).   However, the Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter EIS) submitted by the developer and accepted by the Town Board discussed only the environmental impacts anticipated from the golf course.   Although the developer proposed to build up to 333 houses in conjunction with this golf course, it did not specify the number or locations of these habitations in its EIS, with the consequence that their environmental impacts remain unexplored.   The Town Board was obligated to consider the environmental concerns raised by the entire project at the time of the rezoning application, and its failure to do so violated SEQRA (see, Matter of Citizens Concerned for Harlem Val. Envt. v. Town Bd. of Town of Amenia, supra;  6 NYCRR 617.2[ag] ).

 In addition, the Town Board violated SEQRA by failing to consider a “no action” alternative to the proposed development (6 NYCRR 617.9[5] [v] ).   It also did not sufficiently consider “mitigation” measures (6 NYCRR 617.9[5] [iv] ) in that, inter alia, it refused to explore a purely organic system of maintaining the golf course at issue.   Indeed, although for the purpose of the golf course alone the developer proposed to cut down nearly half of a large woodland area, the respondents have flatly denied that the project will have any adverse environmental impact, and insist that no mitigation measures of any sort are required (cf., Matter of City of Rye v. Korff, 249 A.D.2d 470, 671 N.Y.S.2d 526).   Under the circumstances, the Town Board failed to take a “hard look” at the proposed project under SEQRA (see, 6 NYCRR 617.9).

In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the parties' remaining contentions.