02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

" i I", '~ I: (( ) II II 'I II I i I i I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I , It 'I I I I I ! I I I II IU: II I (() Zoning Bulletin December 25, 20091 Volume 31 No. 24 applied to the city, seeking a rezoning of the parcel. The parcel, which was a parking lot, was zoned for residential use, and Tharaldson sough permission to construct a hotel on the parcel. The city determined that the proposed rezoning required the prepa- ration of an environmental impact statement ("EIS"). Eventually, after accepting Tharaldson's final EIS, in December 2005, the city approved the zoning change. Subsequently, Save the Pine Bush, Inc. and nine of its members chal- lenged the rezoning in court. Tharaldson's property was near certain protected areas known as the Pine Bush Preserve. The Preserve includ- ed "Butterfly Hill," a habitat of endangered Karner Blue butterfly. The Preserve was also "known to support numerous rare or unusual spe- cies," including: the Frosted Elfin butterfly; the Hognosed Snake; the Worm Snake; and the Eastern Spadefoot Toad. Save the Pine Bush was an organization whose members claimed to "use the Pine Bush [Pre- serve] for recreation and to study and enjoy the unique habitat found there." In its challenge, Save the Pine Bush, among other things, argued, that the rezoning violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") because Tharaldson's EIS was deficient in that it failed to evaluate possible threats to, the "Frosted Elfin butterflyot any other listed species"; it only evaluated threats to the Karner Blue butterfly. The city asked the Supreme Ccourt to dismiss Save the Pine Bush'sac- tion for lack of standing (i.e., it argued that the organization did not have the legal right to challenge the action). It contended that the organization and its members did not have standing to bring the action because none of the members of the organization was a "near neighbor of the site of the proposed hotel development." The Supreme Court denied the city's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Further it found for Save the Pine Bush on the merits of its argument. The city appealed, and the appellate division affirmed. The city again appealed. DECISION: Affirmed as to standing; reversed as to merits of the challenge. The Court of Appeals of New York held that "a person who can prove that he or she uses and enjoys a natural resource more than most other members of the public has standing ... to challenge government actions that threaten that resource." The court held that Save the Pine Bush and its members'had standing to challenge the rezoning. In so holding, the court explained that in order to have standing a ' person challenging a land use decision must show: "that it would suf- fer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large." More specifically, in cases involving envirollmental matters, an organization would have standing only if it could establish "by proof that agency action will directly harm association members @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 5 Ii d II I, ,; ii II I. II 'I I. I' ,I ~ j I I ~ I 79