The petitioner-owners of certain real property that was the subject of an application to the Town by Wal-Mart, did not have standing to challenge the Board’s denial of Wal-Mart’s application since only Wal-Mart was an aggrieved party. The Court noted, “Simply because petitioners gave Wal-Mart permission to seek PUDD approval did not make petitioners a party to that proceeding, nor is there any evidence suggesting that they in any way participated in it.” However, the Court concluded that as owners of property located within one of the zoning districts to which the new zoning law applies, and as a result of the new zoning scheme they would suffer direct harm or injury different from that of the public at large, the petitioners did have standing to challenge the process used by the Town Board leading to the enactment of a new zoning law. Further, petitioners have standing under SEQRA since they have a specific noneconomic environmental injury that falls within the zone of interest sought to be protected by the statute.
Petitioners challenged the decision of the Town Board to revise its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance as it relates to their property alleging that such actions were arbitrary and capricious, and a mere pretext to prevent Wal-Mart from building in the Town. The Court determined that the Town’s actions were part of a well considered comprehensive plan designed to serve the general welfare of the community. The Court said that the proof offered by the petitioners was simply insufficient to overcome the strong presumption of validity of the Town’s actions.
Lastly, the Court dismissed petitioners’ claim that members of the Town Board conducted a secret meeting for the purpose of discussing the application to build the Wal-Mart on petitioners’ property, as well as proposals to change the Town’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Since the petitioners made an identical claim in an earlier motion for preaction disclosure (which was denied because the trial court determined it was a political caucus and not a meeting of the Town Board) where they sought to depose each member of the Town Board to determine what transpired at the meeting, and there was no new evidence offered to provide a basis for reconsideration, the appellate court was bound by the trial court’s determination.
Rossi v. Town Bd. of Town of Ballston, 2008 WL 795092 (N.Y. A. D. 3rd Dept. 3/27/2008).
The opinion can be accessed at:
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2008/503404.pdf
