Share this:

In 2006 the Town of Huntington amended its Code to permit “mixed use buildings” in it’s C-6 General Business District.  A number of individuals and an association commenced a hybrid lawsuit to annul the local law on the grounds that the Board failed to take the required “hard look” under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

 

In applying the standing rules for environmental disputes under SEQRA, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in finding that the individual petitioners lacked standing.  The Court noted that the two petitioners who owned commercial property within the C-6 General Business District had standing since “’[W]here the challenge is to the SEQRA review undertaken as part of a zoning enactment, the owner of property that is the subject of the rezoning need not allege the likelihood of environmental harm.’” Citing to Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v. Town of Sardinia, 87 N.Y.2d 668.  The Court also determined that a third individual who owned property within 50 to 60 feet of the General Business District also had standing to challenge the Town’s SEQRA determination given his proximity and his allegations that the local law would detrimentally impact the Town’s sewage and wastewater systems, increase traffic, and negatively impact groundwater.  With respect to the association and the remaining petitioners/plaintiffs, the Court agreed with the trial court that they lacked standing since they were not in close proximity to the C-6 General Business District and their allegations of environmental impact were not any different from those of the public at large.

 

Bloodgood v. Town of Huntington, 2009 WL 93711 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1/13/2009).

                           

The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_00203.htm