Has anyone dealt with how a municipality can require an applicant to fully assess alternative previously disturbed sites, or existing buildings that are available before approving a green lot development? The particular question that came up is can a planning board (during site plan approval) require an applicant to show they have investigated other sites even if they do not own the site.

This is in NY in case it is relavant.

I know that our NYS SEQRA law states that
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"(v) a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. The description and evaluation of each alternative should be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed. The range of alternatives must include the no action alternative. The no action alternative discussion should evaluate the adverse or beneficial site changes that are likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future, in the absence of the proposed action. The range of alternatives may also include, as appropriate, alternative:

(a) sites;
(b) technology;
(c) scale or magnitude;
(d) design;
(e) timing;
(f) use; and
(g) types of action.

For private project sponsors, any alternative for which no discretionary approvals are needed may be described. Site alternatives MAY be limited to parcels owned by, or under option to, a private project sponsor;"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in the SEQRA process they MAY only have to consider sites they own. Wasn't sure if there was a different way of going about this. Reference at the comprehensive plan level the desire for any new development that is proposed to show the planning board that alternative sites have been consider...and rely on local law.???


Any examples, thoughts would be MOST appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
Tara