STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY CATSKILL "AGE ALLIANCE INC., KATHY NOLAN as SECRETARY/TREASURER OF THE FRIENDS OF THE, CATSKILLS PARK; PUA ASSOCIATES BENJAMIN AND EDITH KORMAN; BEVERLY RAINONE; MARY GOULD; KINGDON GOULD III; THORNE GOULD; LYDIA BARBIERY; FRANK GOULD; CANDIDA LANCASTER; ANNUNZIATA GOULD; THALIA PRYOR; MELISSA GOULD and CALEB GOULD, Petitioners, DECISION/JUDGMENT -against- Index No. 5362-15 RIENo, 01-16-ST7541 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION and CROSSROADS VENTURES LLC, Respondents, ‘APPEARANCES: Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC For Petitioners 1111 Washington Avenue Albany NY 12210-2211 Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna LLP For Respondent Crossroads Ventures LLC Once Commerce Plaza Albany NY 12260 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Norman Speigel and Andrew G. Frank, Esq, (Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel) Attorney for Respondent New York State Department of Environmental Conservation The Capitol Albany, New York 12224-0341 RYBA,J., In 1999, respondent Crossroads Ventures LLC submitted applications for various permits required for the proposed construction and development ofa combined hotel, spa and golf coursefacility known as “The Belleayre Resort at Catskill Park”, situated on approximately 1,960 acres of land owied by Crossroads in the adjacent towns of Shandaken and Middleton in the Catskill Mountains. In June 2000, respondent New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafier DEC) issued a positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (hereinafter SEQRA) (ECL §§ 8-0101 through 8-0117) determining that the proposed Belleayre Resort may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and thus required Crossroads conduct an environmental review of the proposed project and to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (hereinafter draft EIS) In Jate 2003, Crossroads submitted a draft EIS for the original version of the project whieh consisted of one economically integrated resort with two principle development components known as Big Indian Plateaw'and Wildacres, The Big Indian Plateau development was to be situated on approximately 1,242 acres of land and was to include Big Indian Country Club, consisting ofan 18 hole gold course, a clubhouse and 95 detached lodging units; Big Indian Resort and Spa, consisting of a 150-room luxury hotel and spa with two restaurant and ballroom facilities; and Belleayre Highlands, consisting of $5 detached lodging units, an activities center, swimming pool and tennis, court. The Wildacres development was located on approximately 718 acres of land and included Wildacres Resort, which offered amenities such as an 18-hole golf course and clubhouse, 250-room, hotel, 13,000 square feet of retail space, three restaurants, a spa, a ballroom and a conference center; the Wildemess Activity Center, which operated as a four-season facility utilizing pre-existing buildings on the premises and offering a variety of recreational activities; and Highmount Estates, which consisted of a 21-lot subdivision for single family homes. ‘After the draft EIS was accepted for public review, four days of legislative hearings wereconducted in January and February 2004 for the purpose of providing an opportunity for written public comments on the proposed project. Thereafter, based upon concerns that the project may not satisfy permitting standards, the DEC referred the project to its Office of Hearings and Mediation Services whereupon an Administrative Law Judge conducted an issues conference for the purpose of determining whether any substantive and significant issues impacting the environment should advance to an adjudicatory hearing, At the extensive issues conference which spanned 18 days between the period of May 2004 through August 2004, the participants presented the testimony of dozens of witnesses and introduced thousands of pages of documentary evidence on various subjects including stormwater management, visual impacts, community character impacts, and possible alternative versions of the project.’ At the conclusion of the issues conference, the Administrative Law Judge issued a ruling identifying various issues that he deemed to be substantive and significant and therefore qualified for adjudication, including visual impacts, stormwater runoff management, impacts on community character, and feasible project alternatives. On administrative appeal from that determination, the then-Acting Commissioner delegated her decision-making authority to the Deputy Commissioner, who issued an Interim Decision identifying six substantive and significantissues that were advanced to adjudication, namely: 1) whether the water supply permit for the Big Indian Plateau complied with applicable regulatory requirements; 2) dewatering and impacts on aquatic "The entities that participated in the issues conference were Crossroads, DEC staff, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, the Coalition Watershed Towns, Delaware County, the Towns of Middletown and Shandaken, the Town of Shandaken Planning Board, and the Catskill Preservation Coalition and Sierra Club. ‘The Catskill Preservation Coalition was comprised of 10 separate environmental groups including petitioner Catskill Heritage Alliance Inc.habitat; 3) stormwater related matters; 4) operational noise impacts on wildemess areas in the nearby Catskill Forest Preserve arising from onsite activities at Big Indian Plateau; 5) visual impacts caused by Big Indian Plateau, and 6) a supplemental evaluation of alternative project designs and layouts, In the Interim Decision; the Commissioner also removed the issue of community character from adjudication based upon a finding that no substantive and significant issue regarding community character impacts existed. After the Interim Decision was issued, the parties to the issues conference and the State of ‘New York entered into intensive negotiations in an attempt to develop a revised project design to address and mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project identified in the Interim Decision. ‘These negotiations culminated in an Agreement in Principle (hereinafter AIP), which was executed in September 2007 by the State of New York and all but four of the parties to the issues conference, Under the terms of the AIP, ssroads agreed to replace the originally proposed Bellayre Resort development with a modified project that was intended to minimize the potential for significant environmental impacts. The modified project completely eliminated the Big Indian Plateau development and included significant modifications to the Wildacres development including reconfiguration of the eastern portion of the development to minimize land and steep slope disturbance, elimination of the 21-unit subdivision known as Highmount Estates, elimination of one proposed golf course and organic management of the remaining course, and enhanced storm water monitoring and management protocol. The AIP was executed with the understanding that the modified project would require new or modified permit applications, the filing ? The terms of the AIP provided that approximately 1,200 acres of land comprising the Big Indian Plateau was to be acquired by the State of New York for inclusion in the State Forest preserveofa supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), and an additional period of public review and comment. In view of the expected mitigation of the environmental concerns identified for adjudication in the Interim Decision and the need for the submission of supplemental materials on the modified project, Crossroads moved for an order suspending the adjudicatory hearing and staying the pending motion for reconsideration of that portion of the Interim Decision which removed the issue of community character from adjudication. Crossroads’ motion was granted. In 2013, after completing the additional environmental studies contemplated by the AIP, Crossroads supplied the DEC with a supplemental EIS (SEIS) and revised permit applications which included additional environmental commitments and conditions that Crossroads agreed to incorporate into the modified project after executing the AIP. As set forth in the SEIS, the modified project consisted of Wildacres Resort, located on approximately 254 acres of the eastern side of the project site, and Highmount Resort, located on approximately 237 acres on the westem side of the project site. Following a legislative hearing allowing for public review and comment on the modified project, in September 2014 the DEC issued a draft final EIS (FEIS) and preliminary final permits reflecting responses to public comments and incorporating the project changes that Crossroads agreed to after the signing of the AIP. Thereafter, DEC staff filed « motion to eancel the adjudicatory hearing on grounds that the modified project rendered all of the issues previously identified for adjudication moot or no longer substantive and significant, and that any new issues raised by the modified project were not substantive and significant so as to necessitate an adjudicatory hearing. DEC staff’ additionally requested an order denying the previously suspended motion for reconsideration of that portion of the Interim Decision which eliminated community character from the issues to be adjudicated. ‘Themotion was opposed by two parties to the issues conference, as well as by several of the petitioners herein who were not parties to the issues conference but filed petitions for party status based upon their ownership of land in the vicinity of the project. The procedural and substantive arguments advanced in opposition to the DEC staff motion included claims that the Commissioner lacked authority to consider the motions without an initial ruling from the Administrative Law Iudge (ALJ), that the issues previously identified for adjudication were still substantive and significant, and that the modified project presented new substantive and significant issues for adjudication including significant visual impacts and stormwater management impacts that had not been mitigated ‘The Commissioner ruled on all pending motions and issues in a thorough and detailed 42- page determination dated July 10,2015. Initially, the Commissioner determined that, inasmuch as the motion by DEC staff was in essence one seeking reconsideration of the Interim Decision, he had authority to rule on the motion rather than requiring it to be heard by an ALJ in the first instance. ‘The Commissioner further found that to the extent that DEC regulations required the motion to be submitted to an ALJ in the first instance, DEC regulations granted him the authority to modify any such rule in the interest of avoiding the prejudice, cost and delay that would result from remanding the matter to an ALJ unnecessarily. Next, the Commissioner considered whether in light of the significant modification of the project subsequent to the Interim Decision the six issues identified therein remained adjudicable, and whether the proposed issues arising from the modified project qualified for adjudication, After examining the materials in the record and noting that the SEIS presented a comprehensive alternatives analysis explaining how the modified project achieved a significant reduction in the overall size and scope of the project and mitigated or completely climinated several environmental impacts of the original project, the Commissioner concluded thatthe previously identified issues for adjudication were either moot or otherwise appropriately addressed by the modified project. As for the newly proposed issues for adjudication relating to the modified project, the Commissioner found that the issues were either untimely raised or that petitioners failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the issues were substantial and significant, Finally, the Commissioner denied the motion for reconsideration on the issue of community character based upon a finding that the Deputy Commissioner did not misapprehend the relevant facts or misapply controlling law when removing the issue from adjudication. Accordingly, the Commissioner granted the motion to cancel the adjudicatory hearing and remanded the matter to DEC for acceptance of the FEIS and issuance of the final permits for the projects. In this hybrid CPLR Article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action that later ensued, petitioners seek a judgment annulling the Commissioner’s determination, remanding the matter to an ALJ for rulings on the motion to cancel the adjudicatory hearing and other matters, and an order revoking the final EIS and reopening the public hearing comment period. ‘As grounds for the requested relief, petitioners allege that the Commissioner's determination that he was authorized to rule on the motion to cancel the adjudicatory hearing, as well as his determination that the motion to cancel should be granted, was arbitrary and capricious and a violation of agency rules, Initially, in reviewing an administrative determination, the Court’s role is not to reweigh the relevant factors and substitute its judgment for that of the ageney (see, Matter of Gallo v State of N.Y. Off. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities, 37 AD3d 984, 985 [2007)), but is limited to ascertaining whether the determination is arbitrary and capricious and, thus, without a rational basis (see, Elacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355, 363 [1987]; Matterof Warder v Board of Regents of Uniy, of State of NY, 53 NY2d 186, 194 [1981]; Port of Oswego Auth. v Grannis, 70 AD3d 1101, 1103 [2010]; Matter of Grella v Hevesi, 38 AD3d 113, 116 (2007}), “An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” (Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY34 424, 431 [2009]; see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dis [Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974)). In deciding whether an agency determination has a rational basis, the Court must give great weight and considerable deference to an ageney’s interpretation of its own regulations in areas ofits own expertise and must uphold any construction given statutes and regulations by the ageney responsible for their administration that is not irrational or unreasonable (see, Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys,, Inc,, 69 NY2d 355, 363 [1987]; Advanced Therapy v New York, State Educ, Dep't, 140 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2016], appeal dismissed, leave denied _NY3d __ [Oct. 25, 2016]; Matter of Cooke Cir. for Leaming & Dev. v Mills, 19 AD3d 834, 835 [2005] lv dismissed and denied 5 NY3d 846[2005]). Finally, ‘when a determination is supported by a rational basis, it must be sustained even if the reviewing court would have reached a different result (see, Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]; CDE Elec., Inc. v Rivera, 124 AD3d 1178, 1180 [2015)). ‘The verified petition sets forth 13 causes of action challenging various alleged procedural and substantive errors in the proceedings as grounds for annulment of the Commissioner's determination. First addressing the various procedural errors alleged, petitioners claim in their ninth cause of action that the Commissioner improperly placed various motions in abeyance and thereby precluded them being fully and timely resolved, Inasmuch as petitioners fail to provide any legal or factual basis for this argument in their supporting papers,they have failed to satisfy their burden to demonstrate its validity. In any event, given the ‘Commissioner's inherent authority to resolve scheduling matters, and inasmuch as petitioners have demonstrated no prejudice resulting from any delay in resolving the motions, this eause of action does not furnish grounds to annul the Commissioner's determination. Similarly, petitioners have failed to offer any legal or factual support for the 13 cause of action alleging that DEC impermissibly included additional technical studies in the FEIS afler the publie comment period was closed, In any event, the Court finds that DEC could have rationally ‘concluded that reopening the comment period was unnecessary under the circumstances presented (see, Morse v Town of Gardiner Planning Bd., 64 AD2d 336 [1990]). ‘Turning to the remaining procedural irregularities alleged in the petition, the Court discerns no basis to find that the Commi joner abused his discretion in determining that he had authority to rule on the DEC staff’s motion to cancel the adjudicatory hearing rather than remit the matter to an ALJ for an initial determination. The Commissioner could appropriately elect to treat the motion as one for reconsideration of the Interim Decision in light of the fact that the modified project incorporated modifications aimed at mitigating the environmental concerns that were identified for adjudication in the Interim Decision, Inasmuch as the Commissioner has inherent authority to reconsider his own decisions, the motion was properly directed to his attention. Moreover, as noted by the Commissioner, there is nothing in DEC hearing rules that requires a motion for reconsideration of an Interim Decision to be directed to an ALI in the first instance. Further authority for the Commissioner's decision to rule on the motion to cancel the adjudicatory hearing may be derived from Delegation of Authority Rule #14-02, which states thatALIs are granted authority to act on the Commissioner's behalf, but clarifies that nothing contained in such delegation of authority “shall limit [the Commissioner's) authority to convene or conduct hearings or to render determinations or decisions.” Finally, a rational basis for the Commis ioner’s decision to hear the motion to cancel the adjudicatory hearing may be derived from 6 NYCRR 624.6 (g), which provides that “to avoid prejudice to any party, all rules of practice involving time frames may be modified by direction of the ALJ and, for the same reasons, any other rule may be modified by the commissioner upon recommendation of the ALJ or upon the commissioner's initiative” (6 NYCRR 624.6 [g] [emphasis supplied). Under the circumstances, the Commissioner rationally concluded that ruling on the motion fo cancel rather than remitting the matter to an ALJ was an appropriate course of action aimed at avoiding unnecessary delay and expense in an already lengthy administrative process that extended over a period of more than 16 years, Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to disturb the Commissioner’s determination that he had authority to rule on the motion to cancel, ‘The Court will next consider the substantive arguments raised in the remainder of the petition. Petitioners contend that the determination cancelling the adjudicatory hearing was arbitrary and capricious and should be annulled because the Commissioner impropetly shifted the burden of proof to the non-moving parties, improperly ruled that the issues identified for adjudication in the Interim Decision no longer requized adjudication, and irrationally concluded that the modified project raised no new issues requiring adjudication. In evaluating these claims, it is important to note that an agency's assessment of the environmental impact of a particular project, and the consequent determination to issue appropriate permits, will not be disturbed unless it is predicated upon an error of law, is arbitrary or capricious, or constitutes an abuse of 10discretion (see, CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Town of Dryden v Tompkins County Bd, of Representatives, 78 NY2d 331, 333 [1991 ; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d at 231 £1974]; Matter of Town of Charleston v Montgomery, Otsego, Schoharie Solid Waste Mgt Auth., 235 AD2d 608 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 812 [1997]. “Moreover, where, as here, the judgment of the agency involves factual evaluations in the area of the agency's expertise and is supported by the record, such judgment must be accorded great weight and judicial deference * * *° Glacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355, 363 [1987] [citations omitted); see, Reg'l Action Grp. for the Env’t Inc. v Zagata, 245 A.D.2d:'798, 800 [1997]). i ly, the Court rejects the notion that the Commissioner improperly allocated the burden of proof to petitioners, With regard to DEC’s staff motion to cancel the adjudicatory hearing on the issues identified for adjudication in the Interim Decision, the Commissioner ruled that DEC staff bore the burden to demonstrate that such issues no longer qualified for adjudication. As for any new environmental issues created by the modified project, the Commissioner ruled that petitioners bore the burden to establish that these proposed issues were substantive and significant and thus warranted adjudication, The Court discerns no abuse of discretion in this regard. Notably, 6 NYCRR § 624.4 9 (c) (1) (iii) provides that “in situations where the department staff has reviewed an application and finds that a component of the applicant’s project * * * conforms to all applicable requirements of a statute or regulation, the burden of persuasion is on the potential party proposing any issue related to that issue to demonstrate that itis both substantive and significant.” A plain reading of this language clearly supports the Commissioner's decision to appropriately place the burden upon petitioners, the parties proposing the claimed issues for adjudication, to establish that the proposed uWenvironmental issues ereated by the modified project were substantive and significant, The Court will next address the claim that the Commissioner erroneously found that certain issues identified for adjudication in the Interim Decision were either moot or were no longer substantive and significant by virtue of the changes effectuated by the modified project. Initially, petitioners concede that all issues relating exclusively to development at the Big Indian Plateau have been rendered moot by the elimination of that component from the modified project. Petitioners accordingly limit their challenge to the Commissioner's determination that no adjudicatory hearing was necessary on the previously identified issue of feasible altemative project designs and layouts. As for new issues arising out of the modified project, petitioners contend that the Commissioner erred in finding that no substantive and significant issues for adjudication existed with regard to the issues of stormwater management and visual impacts. ‘The determination of whether an environmental issue is substantive and significant requiring an adjudicatory hearing is a matter left to the Commissioner, whose finding will not be disturbed absent a showing that “it is predicated upon an error of law, is arbitrary or capricious, or represents an abuse of discretion’ ” (Saratoga Water Servs, v Zagata, 247 AD2d 788, 789-790, 669 [1998], quoting Matter of Regional Action Group for Envi. v Zagata, 245 AD2d 798, 800,[1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 811 [1998]; see, Matter of Eastern Niagara Project Alliance v New York State Dept, of Envtl. Conservation, 42 AD3d 857, 861 [2007]). Furthermore, a proposed issue may be found to be “substantive” only where “there is sufficient doubt about the applicant's ability to meet statutory or regulatory criteria applicable to the project” (6 NYCRR 624.4 [c] [2]). Am issue may be deemed significant “if it has the potential to result in the denial of a permit, a major modification to the proposed project or the imposition of 12[additional] significant permit conditions” (6 NYCRR 624.4 [c][3]; see, Matter of E: ‘Niagara Project Power Alliance v, New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 42 AD3d 857, 861 [2007)). In order to demonstrate entitlement to an adjudicatory hearing, petitioners were required to substantiate their concerns with an offer of proof explaining the basis of their claims and identifying specific grounds that would warrant the denial or significant limitation of the pert (see, Raritan Baykeeper, Inc, V Martens, 142 A.D.3d 1083 [2016]). “Mere expressions of general opposition to a project are insufficient grounds for holding an adjudicatory public hearing on.a permit application” (6 NYCRR 621.8[d]; see, E, Niagara Project Power All, v St Envtl. Conservati ion, 42 AD3d 857, 861 [2007]); Matter of Citizens for Clean Air v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 135 AD2d 256, 261 [1988], appeal dismissed 72 NY2d 853 [1988] ). In evaluating whether the determination to deny an adjudicatory hearing is rational, the Court must not reweigh the underlying factors or the desirability of any action and is precluded from substituting its judgment for that of the agency (see, Matter of Gallo v State of N.Y., Off. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities, 37 AD3d 984, 985 [2007]; E. Niagara Project Power All.v, State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 42 AD3d at 861 [2007]). Rather, the determination not to adjudicate an issue will be upheld and a substantive and significant issue will not be found if the determination is reasonable and supported by the record” (see, Gracie Point Cmty. ex rel, Ard v NY. State Dep't of Envtl, Conservation, 92 AD3d 123 [2011]). A review of the record leads the Court to conclude that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in determining that there were no substantive and signi cant issues warranting adjudication. First addressing the denial of the motion to rec ider the decision to remove the issue of community character from aduidication, the Deputy Commissioner’s finding that an Badjudicatory hearing was unnecessary was premised upon the considerable deference that must be afforded to the standard for community character established by local land use plans, and upon the fact that the record already contained more than sufficient information as to community character by virtue of the three-day evaluation of the issue during the issues conference, In evaluating the motion for reconsideration, the Commissioner declined to disturb this determin jon, finding that the Deputy Commissioner did not misapprehend the relevant facts or misapply controlling law in reaching his determination that an adjudicatory hearing was unnecessary. Here, petitioners have not demonstrated that the Deputy Commissioner misinterpreted the facts, applied an incorrect legal standard or failed to appropriate separate consideration to community character issues. Accordingly, the Court declines to disturb the Commissioner’s determination denying the motion for reconsideration (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558 [1979]). Next, there is no merit to petitioners’ argument that the Commissioner abused his discretion in concluding that whether feasible alternatives to the proposed project existed was not an issue that merited adjudication. The Interim Decision identified the feasible alternatives issue as one requiring adjudication and, accordingly, required Crossroads to provide a SEIS detailing the environmental impacts of alternative layouts on Wildacres Resort and Big Indian Plateau, specifically an east resort [Big Indian Plateau] and west resort [Wildacres] alternative, a one golf course and one hotel complex alternative, and any feasible smaller-scale project and layout alternatives. Petitioners do not contest that the Commissioner rationally concluded that the complete elimination of the Big Indian Plateau aspect of the development from the modified project rendered moot the directive to consider altemative layouts of Big Indian Plateau, 4However, petitioners argue that the Commissioner abused his discretion in determining that the modified project adequately addressed the Interim Decision’s directive to consider other smaller- scale project alternatives and layout alternatives and that no adjudicatory hearing was required on these issues. Specifically, petitioners assert that substantial and significant issues were raised regarding the feasibility of a “Wildacres Resort only” alternative, ic., the complete elimination of Highmount Resort from the project, and that the Commissioner therefore abused his diseretion int caneelling the adjudicatory hearing on the issue of feasible alternatives, The record clearly reveals a rational basis for the Commissioner’s conclusion that no substantive and significant issues remained for adjudication regarding feasible project alternatives inasmuch as the SEIS prepared by Crossroads for the modified project satisfactorily analyzed the environmental impact of the feasible alternative issues directed by the Interim Decision. Based upon a review of the record, itis evident that the Commissioner rationally found that the SEIS presented a comprehensive alternatives analysis comparing the type and magnitude of the environmental impacts of the original project to those of the modified project, while also underscoring the reduction in overall size and scope of the modified project as a whole. As for the “Wildacres Resort only” project alternative, the Commissioner’s finding that this proposed alternative did not present a substantial and significant issue for adjudication was rationally based upon the environmental analysis set forth in the SEIS, which revealed that eliminating the Highmount Resort from the project would only modestly reduce negative environmental impacts while simultaneously rendering the remainder of the entire project economically unfeasible. Although petitioners’ expert offered a contrary opinion that a “Wildacres Resort only” alternative was economically feasible, this does not automatically raise 15a substantive and significant issue for adjudication inasmuch as economic feasibility need not be considered under SEQRA (see, Matter of Kirque] Development v Planning Bd. of Town of Cortlandt, 96 Ad3d 754, 755 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 813 [2012}). In any event, the fact that, a different determination could have been made on the basis of conflicting evidence does not ‘warrant judicial interference where the challenged determination has a rational basis (see, ‘Town of Preble v Zagata, 263 AD2d 833, 835 [1999]). The Commissioner’s determination that the issue of feasible project alternatives was adequately addressed and did not warrant an adjudicatory hearing was based upon a complete review of a well-developed record and the Court declines to substitute its judgntent for that of the Commissioner (see, Reg'l Action Grp. for the Env't Ine, v, Zagata, 245 AD2d 798, 800 [1997]; Matter of Gracie Point Comm. Council v New ‘York State Dep't of Envil, Conservation, 92 AD3d 123, 129, Iv denied 19 NY3d 807 (2011). Having addressed the Commissioner's determination with respect to the issues previously identified for adjudication, the Court will now turn to the new environmental issues alleged to have been created by the modified project. Petitioners contend that the Commissioner inrationally determined that the modified project did not give rise to any new substantive and significant impacts requiring adjudication, arguing that an adjudicatory hearing is warranted on issues relating to stormwater management and visual impacts of the modified project. With regard to stormwater management issues, petitioners assert that the Commissioner erred in excluding from adjudication potential issues relating to the increased capacity of culverts on the Highmount development and the increased volume of runoff caused by extreme weather events. According to petitioners, these issues were substantive and significant as they relate to properties adjacent to and downstream from the Highmount development which would potentially face 16substantial damage from runoff in the event of a high intensity rainfall. In rejecting this argument, the Commissioner initially noted that petitioner failed to identify any legal authority requiring evaluation of these issues. In any event, the Commissioner based his finding that stormwater management did not present a substantive and significant issue for adjudication upon his review of relevant studies and information, including the fact that the proposed stormwater management system would achieve runoff rates equal to or below existing conditions and satisfied the applicable requirements for mitigation of storm events set forth in the 2010 New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual and New York City Department of Environmental Protection requirements. The factual assessments performed by the Commissioner in rendering his determination required highly specialized expertise and are entitled to great deference and, notably, it is not the function of this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the Commis jioner or to conduct a de novo review of every potential environmental impact raised by petitioners (see, Aldrich v Pattison, 107 AD2d 258 [1985)). Inasmuch as the Commissioner's determination is supported by a reasoned analysis of the relevant evidence, the Court finds no basis to disturb it, Finally, petitioners contend that the Commissioner irrationally found no issue for adjudication with regard to visual impacts of the modified project upon the neighboring Galli- Curci Mansion, which is owned by petitioner PUA Associates LLC. Specifically, petitioners contend that the Commissioner failed to consider their expert evidence disclosing significant, visual impacts and erroneously relied upon the finding of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Perseveration (hereinafter OPRHP) that no adverse impacts would result to the historic ”property. ‘The record reveals that in rendering his determination, the Commissioner did not rely solely on the OPRHP’s finding of no adverse impact, but also considered the statements of petitioners’ expert, the results of the visual impact assessment performed by DEC staff that revealed no significant visual impact issues, and additional visual impact reviews detailed in the FEIS which demonstrates that certain intervening topography would visually screen the modified project. Under these circumstances, the record clearly demonstrates a rational basis for the Commissioner’s determination that petitioners failed to raise a substantive and significant visual impact issue that would require adjudication. To the extent that petitioners’ contentions have not been specifically addressed herein, they have been reviewed and found to be lacking in merit, For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADSUDGED that petitioners’ request for relief is denied and the petition is dismissed, without costs. This memorandum constitutes the Decision and Judgment of the Court. The original Decision and Judgment is being returned to the attorney for the respondents, The below referenced original papers are being transferred to the Albany County Clerk, The signing of the Decision and Judgment shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the provision of that rule regarding filing, entry or notice of entry. SO ORDERED. ENTER, Dated: December 5, Qole HON. CHRISTINA L. RYBA Supreme Court Justi