Posted by: Patty Salkin | May 2, 2008

NY Appellate Court Determines Petitioners Lack Standing to Challenge Site Plan Approval and Environmental Review

Following a negative declaration finding no impact on the surrounding environment by the proposed project, the planning board issued site plan approval for the construction of seven light industrial buildings on a 36.68-acre parcel of undeveloped land. A portion of this land has been identified as a potential habitat for the Karner Blue Butterfly, an endangered species.  The petitioner, Save the Pine Bush, Inc. and several of its members filed this lawsuit challenging the planning board’s determination. They claimed they had standing because they are an environmental organization dedicated in part to preserving the Karner Blue Butterfly, and that the proposed development would destroy the species’ habitat. Further, the petition claimed that ten of the petitioner’s individual members have a special interest in the preservation of the species because they actively look for, and observe these butterflies, as part of their recreational activities.  

                 

In upholding the finding of the trial court that petitioners lacked standing, the Appellate Court found that the interests these petitioners sought to protect, were no different that the interest enjoyed by the public at large, and that there was no specific environmental injury established to confer standing under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. While three of the organizational members resided in the Town, it was not established that any of them lived in sufficient proximity to the site to qualify for standing. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to submit affidavits from any individuals who might be adversely affected by the development in a manner different in kind and degree from that of the public at large.

 

Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Clifton Park, 2008 WL 1048993 (N.Y. A.D. 3 Dept. 4/11/2008).

 

The opinion can be accessed at: http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2008/503595.pdf

Responses

So, in other words, unless you are actually a landowner bordering the nature preserve, all of whom have already been paid off, then you cannot prove injury…however, on the other hand, if a developer cannot develop land to the “highest and best use” as defined by the developer, an action could be “arbitrary and capricious”…

Nature is not as important as increased revenue, even while infrastructure costs mean taxes will go up, not down….that is Albany for you…..

Apparently, it is the court’s decision we do not all drink the same water or breathe the same air, either….or at least if you are a “nature lover” or some “environmental activist” concerned about quality of life for everyone in Albany, not just the surrounding landowner, you do not have as many rights as you think…..

Way to have a really myopic, short-sighted view, judge and hurt Albany’s potential as a high-quality place to live…just have a huge commercial park then and don’t expect people to drive there and spend money when you don’t even try to protect your dwindling natural resources….

Leave a response

Your response:

Categories