Petitioners live .69 miles from a beach club that was granted certain zoning variances. The appellate court held that they were not entitled to a presumption of injury for purposes of challenging the zoning determination, and that their allegations of injury-in-fact due to overcrowding and congestion were speculative. Further, the Court determined that the alleged injuries were not specific to the petitions and were not distinguishable from those suffered by the public at large. Therefore, the petitioners lacked standing to challenge the issuance of the variances.
Radow v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 989 N.Y.S. 2d 914 (A.D. 2 Dept. 8/6/2014)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2014/D42511.pdf