REGIONAL – SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review), which was put in place by the SEQR Act of 1976, is a set of initials that delineates the battleground between developers and communities wanting control over development. The battle is seen at Planning and Zoning Boards, and sometimes at Town Boards, too.

Since the environment is literally everything that surrounds us, the SEQR process cannot be simple. It seeks to balance the needs of developers, with the need to protect environmental quality for neighbors, towns, and species like the humble bog turtle that is threatened with extinction.

Recently the group Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress produced a considered study of reforms for SEQR. At the same time, it is believed that the Department of Environmental Conservation is preparing some revisions of SEQR, though that may have been delayed due to the pressure of preparing regulations for gas hydro-fracking in New York State.

Larry Wolinsky, an attorney with Jacobowitz and Gubits, LLP, is a spokesman for Pattern for Progress. He said, "Pattern has been involved with this for four or five years, beginning with a regional effort involving Pattern, Scenic Hudson and the DEC Region Three office.

"It is widely perceived both in and outside New York State that it takes too long to get through the SEQR process. What you hear out in the market place is that that length of time has become an obstacle to economic development here.

"So, the whole point was to say there's a way to tweak SEQR to make it work better by injecting more timeliness into the process. This would help break down some of the stigma concerning development in New York State that has developed over time."

"There is a need to put more certainty into the process, and that really is the key to achieving better timeliness."

Dave Church, Commissioner at the Orange County Planning Department was asked about Pattern for Progress's ideas for SEQR reform.

"I believe some refinement is justifiable. There is some consensus on some items, such as updating the assessment forms they use."

"In general, the fact is, the private sector would prefer a quick 'Yes' or a quick 'No' from planning boards. I think that towns should put more resources into stronger pro-active planning."

Pro-active planning would mean that there would be much more certainty in the process.

Church explained, "Orange County is working on a design guidebook. We identify three kinds of development projects: 1 - Projects we want. 2 - Projects we don't want. 3 - Projects in the middle; things that we thought we didn't want, but if you met further design standards then we might want them, because we're not quite sure."

To this, Kris Pedersen, Chair of the Town of Shawangunk Planning Board, said, "It's down to money. To be able to do all the upfront work, to be pro-active in that way, means you have to spend time and money in planning for your town, and that's time and money that towns haven't wished to spend, at least not yet."

Linda Zwart, Chair of the Planning Board in the Town of Crawford, made another point. "Yeah, SEQR compliance is cumbersome and hard to get through, there is that downside, but these things were put in place as a check on bad planning errors."

So towns have not wished to spend the money to be pro-active about SEQR issues, and they are also mindful of the cost of mistakes.

Zwart also pointed out, "Here on the East Coast we have lots of legacy issues. Things that were put down way back, before planning really began."

And, of course, as Kris Pedersen notes, "The system is run by lay people, who are part timers. We do hire experts to get the information we need, but we have to have time to digest that information and then make the decisions to meet the criteria. So, if there's one thing that developers, large and small, should really work on, it's providing the information that's been asked for as quickly as possible — especially if there are technical issues that mean we will have to have it reviewed by professionals. That can really make a big difference in how long it takes."

Dave Church, meanwhile, thinks the focus should be on assisting small applicants. "We tend to dwell on anecdotes from larger projects, but I think we need to make the system friendly and predictable for small scale applicants. There are some improvements that could be done, and those are, I think, overdue." Linda Zwart would agree with that. "With something reasonably simple, perhaps a farmer with a field that he wants to put some houses into, well, we still need to take a hard look, but perhaps there could be an easier route to completion of SEQR."

Kris Pedersen would add, "On the face of it, a two lot subdivision with no obvious problems, shouldn't take more than three months to move through the planning board to approval. But, remember that there are factors that might require a review by county planning, or by the town engineer, or town attorney, or even by the DEC, if there are wetlands. So, all these factors can make what looks like a quick and easy application into something that takes six months."

The DEC has let it be known that many voices have been heard concerning review of the SEQR rules. Everyone in our region has a vested interest in how those rules are changed, if they are.