Development

Neighbor's Challenge to Variance

Matter of Radow v. Board of Appeals

NYLJ 8/8/14, p. 28, col. 6

AppDiv, Second Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an article 78 proceeding challenging the issuance of variances, petitioners appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition for lack of standing. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that petitioner was not entitled to a presumption of injury.

The board of appeals granted variances to a beach club owner in the Town of Hempstead. Petitioners live .69 miles away from the beach club, and brought this proceeding to annul the variances, alleging that the variances would cause overcrowding and congestion in the area. Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of standing.

In affirming, the Appellate Division noted that to establish standing, petitioners would have to establish either such close proximity to the property at issue to raise a presumption of injury, or actual and specific injury in fact. The court concluded that petitioners' property was not close enough to the beach club to raise the presumption, and held that the allegations of overcrowding and congestion were not specific to petitioners, and noted that the alleged injuries were not distinguishable from those suffered by the public at large.

'

Neighbor's Challenge to Variance

Matter of Radow v. Board of Appeals

NYLJ 8/8/14, p. 28, col. 6

AppDiv, Second Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an article 78 proceeding challenging the issuance of variances, petitioners appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition for lack of standing. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that petitioner was not entitled to a presumption of injury.

The board of appeals granted variances to a beach club owner in the Town of Hempstead. Petitioners live .69 miles away from the beach club, and brought this proceeding to annul the variances, alleging that the variances would cause overcrowding and congestion in the area. Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of standing.

In affirming, the Appellate Division noted that to establish standing, petitioners would have to establish either such close proximity to the property at issue to raise a presumption of injury, or actual and specific injury in fact. The court concluded that petitioners' property was not close enough to the beach club to raise the presumption, and held that the allegations of overcrowding and congestion were not specific to petitioners, and noted that the alleged injuries were not distinguishable from those suffered by the public at large.

'