Summary
In Lo Lordo v. Bd. of Trustees of Inc. Vill. of Munsey Park, 202 A.D.2d 506, 609 N.Y.S.2d 22 (2d Dept 1994), cited by the petitioners/plaintiffs, it was stated that the owners of property "... near the site of a proposed project, coupled with an allegation of actual or potential noneconomic harm, leads to an inference of potential injury."
Summary of this case from Cold Spring Country Club, Inc. v. Town of HuntingonOpinion
March 14, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A party has standing in a land-use matter if it shows that it would suffer direct harm (i.e., injury in fact) that is in some way different from that of the public at large (see, Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 774; Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v. Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 76 N.Y.2d 428, 433; Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 69 N.Y.2d 406, 412; Matter of Dairylea Coop. v. Walkley, 38 N.Y.2d 6, 9). A property owner has standing to seek review of an agency's compliance with the State Environmental Review Act (hereinafter SEQRA) if the owner has a significant interest in having the mandates of SEQRA enforced (see, Matter of Har Enters. v. Town of Brookhaven, 74 N.Y.2d 524, 529). If an owner has such a significant interest, even if it cannot presently demonstrate an adverse environmental effect, "it nevertheless has a legally cognizable interest in being assured that the decision makers, before proceeding, have considered all of the potential environmental consequences, taken the required `hard look', and made the necessary `reasoned elaboration', of the basis for their determination" (Matter of Har Enters. v. Town of Brookhaven, supra, at 529). It has been held that the status as owners or residents of property near the site of a proposed project, coupled with an allegation of actual or potential noneconomic harm, leads to an inference of potential injury (see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v. Board of Zoning Appeals, supra; Matter of Heritage Co. v. Belanger, 191 A.D.2d 790, 791).
We find the petitioners' allegations of potential injury are supported by the record and that the petitioners have demonstrated that they are within the zone of interest protected by SEQRA. Traffic congestion, such as that alleged by the petitioners has been held to be an environmental issue within the zone of interest of SEQRA (see, Matter of Heritage Co. v Belanger, supra; Matter of Schweiss v. Ambach, 98 A.D.2d 148, affd 63 N.Y.2d 835). Thus, in the present proceeding, the petitioners have each alleged environmental harm that is different from that suffered by the public at large and that comes within the zone of interest protected by SEQRA. Thus, they have the requisite standing to pursue their claims on the merits (see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 69 N.Y.2d 406, supra).
We have considered the respondents' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.