Petitioners are the owners or tenants of property in the Town of Greenburgh on which a diner is located. The property is adjacent to the subject property, the owners of which were granted area variances by the zoning board of appeals to enable development of the parcel which had contained a gas station and residence. The petitioners assert among other things, that there is inadequate parking in the area and that the Board’s determination will have adverse impacts on traffic and parking conditions. The lower court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioners lacked standing.
On appeal, the Court noted that, “To demonstrate standing, the petitioner must show that the administrative action will have a harmful effect on it, and that the interest the petitioner asserts is “arguably within the zone of interest to be protected by the statute.” (citations omitted) The appellate court agreed with the Court below that the petitioners did not allege any legally cognizable injury with respect to parking or traffic. “Simply put, the only effect that the petitioners/plaintiffs allege the area variances will have with respect to parking is limited to parking actually on the subject property. There is no allegation of impact as to on-street parking.” Further the Court found that the petitioners claims were conclusory and speculative.
Panevan Corp. v. Town of Greenburgh, 2016 WL 6604727 (NYAD 2 Dept. 11/9/2016)