Neighbor Standing to Challenge SEQRA Determinations

The Hohman case

In Hohman, the town entered into negotiations with the Nature Conservancy to acquire a 138-acre parcel owned and maintained by the Conservancy. The town board classified the action as a Type I action under SEQRA and prepared an environmental assessment form (EAF). Upon review of the EAF, the town board issued a negative declaration, concluding that the acquisition would have no adverse environmental impact. Neighbors brought this article 78 proceeding challenging the determination, but Supreme Court concluded that neighbors lacked standing.

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.