Neighbor Standing to Challenge SEQRA Determinations

In affirming, the Appellate Division conceded that neighbors own property directly adjacent to the nature preserve. But the court held that in challenges to SEQRA determinations, unlike challenges to zoning determinations, ownership of land in close proximity to the affected land does not create a presumption of standing. The court concluded that the harms alleged by the neighbors — increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic from a newly proposed parking lot and hiking trail — were not distinct from harms that would be suffered by the public at large. As a result, the court concluded that neighbors lacked standing. The court went on to conclude that the alleged injuries were speculative and conjectural, and the court held that Supreme Court had properly granted the town's counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the town had complied with SEQRA.

Land Use Standing in the Court of Appeals

In Matter of Sun-Brite, the Court of Appeals articulated the general rule that standing to challenge administrative determinations requires proof that the challenger "sustained special damage, different in kind and degree from the community generally." But the court then noted that "it is desirable that land use disputes be resolved on their own merits rather than by preclusive, restrictive standing rules." Towards that end, the court created a presumption of standing for neighbors who own land in close proximity to the subject of the challenged zoning measure:

[A] person with property located in the immediate vicinity of the subject property will be adversely affected in a way different from the community at large; loss of value of individual property may be presumed from depreciation of the character of the immediate neighborhood. Thus, an allegation of close proximity alone may give rise to an inference of damage or injury that enables a nearby owner to challenge a zoning board decision without proof of actual injury.

Sun-Brite did not involve a SEQRA determination. But the court has cited Sun-Brite's standing analysis with apparent approval in cases that did involve SEQRA determinations. For instance, in Matter of Har Enterprises v. Town of Brookhaven, 74 N.Y.2d 524, the court cited Sun-Brite while holding that a landowner has presumptive standing to challenge a SEQRA determination with respect to his own land. Moreover, in Mobil Oil Corp. v. Syracuse Industrial Develop. Agency, 76 N.Y.2d 428, another SEQRA case, the court expressly acknowledged that Har was "based on" Sun-Brite's holding that a property owner with a close relationship to the subject property has standing without the need to prove special damages. And in Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of Albany, 13 N.Y.3d 297, the court, in holding that an association had standing to challenge a SEQRA determination even though none of its members owned property adjacent to the subject property, acknowledged that even the city was willing to concede that owners of adjacent property would have standing to challenge the determination.