MATTER OF SAVE OUR MAIN STREET BUILDINGS v. Greene County Legislature
| Decision Date | 18 April 2002 |
| Citation | 293 A.D.2d 907,740 N.Y.S.2d 715 |
| Parties | In the Matter of SAVE OUR MAIN STREET BUILDINGS et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>GREENE COUNTY LEGISLATURE et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Petitioner Save Our Main Street Buildings (hereinafter SOMSB) is an unincorporated association organized to preserve the historic and cultural resources of the Village of Catskill in respondent Greene County, and the individual petitioners are members of SOMSB who live in the Village's East Side Historic District. In June 2001, after several years of investigating the feasibility of constructing a new office building in the Village, and after twice consulting engineering firms, the County issued a bond resolution calling for the acquisition and demolition of 10 buildings on or adjacent to Main Street in the Historic District and their replacement with a 108,000 square foot office building (hereinafter the Project). The County also issued a negative declaration of environmental significance for the Project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]). In reaching this conclusion, the County utilized an engineering firm which assessed the Project's potential environmental impacts and obtained the opinion of an architectural historian that the Project would not adversely affect the integrity of Main Street if, as is planned, the new building were placed so as to preserve the streetscape. The consultants noted that the Historic District comprises over 500 buildings, and that none of the buildings to be removed for the Project is listed as an historic structure. Further, a vacant lot left by the demolition of the former Newberry store building in 1997 and an existing convenience store parking lot already break the line of building facades along Main Street at the Project site.
Alleging a failure to comply with SEQRA requirements, petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the County's resolution and negative declaration. Supreme Court then dismissed the petition, finding, inter alia, that petitioners lack standing to bring the proceeding. Petitioners appeal on the ground that their standing is established by their residence in "close proximity" to the Project. They also allege that their injuries are different from those which the general public will suffer. Scenic Hudson, the Preservation League of New York State and the National Trust for Historic Preservation join in submitting an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners' challenge, asserting that petitioners have standing by virtue of the fact that they live in the Historic District. We are unpersuaded and, accordingly, affirm.
To establish standing under SEQRA, "[i]t is well settled that unless the claimed SEQRA violation relates to a zoning enactment, a party must allege a specific environmental injury which is `in some way different from that of the public at large'" (Matter of Boyle v Town of Woodstock, 257 AD2d 702, 704, quoting Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 774; see, Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 76 NY2d 428, 433; Matter of Buerger v Town of Grafton, 235 AD2d 984, 984-985, lv denied 89 NY2d 816). Generalized environmental concerns will not suffice and, when no zoning-related issue is involved, there is no presumption of standing to raise a SEQRA challenge based on a party's close proximity alone (see, Matter of Oates v Village of Watkins Glen, 290 AD2d 758, 760-761; compare, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d 406, 414).
In this proceeding, petitioner David Seamon alleges that he lives "in close...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sierra Club v. Vill. of Painted Post
...Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d at 775, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034; Save Our Main Street Buildings v. Greene County Legislature, 293 A.D.2d 907, 909, 740 N.Y.S.2d 715 (3d Dept.2002)("standing cannot be based on the claim that a project would "indirectly affect traffic patterns......
-
Allison v. N.Y.C. Landmarks Pres. Comm'n
...v. Common Council of City of Albany, 13 N.Y.3d at 305, 890 N.Y.S.2d 405, 918 N.E.2d 917;Save Our Main St. Bldgs. v. Greene County Legislature, 293 A.D.2d 907, 909, 740 N.Y.S.2d 715 (3d Dep't 2002). Since Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany, 13 N.Y.3d 297, 890 N.Y.S.......
-
Allison v. N.Y. City Landmarks Pres. Comm'n
...727, 734 (1972); Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany, 13 N.Y.3d at 305; Save Our Main St. Bldgs. v. Greene County Legislature, 293 A.D.2d 907, 909 (3d Dep't 2002). Since Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany, 13 N.Y.3d 2 97, its standards have......
-
61 Crown St., LLC v. N.Y. State Office of Parks
...789 N.Y.S.2d 126 [2005], lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 709, 797 N.Y.S.2d 421, 830 N.E.2d 320 [2005] ; Matter of Save Our Main St. Bldgs. v. Greene County Legislature, 293 A.D.2d 907, 908, 740 N.Y.S.2d 715 [2002], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 609, 747 N.Y.S.2d 409, 775 N.E.2d 1288 [2002] ). Accordingly, petitio......
-
Endnotes
...must be “different in kind or degree from that of the public at large”), and Save Our Main Street Buildings v. Green County Legislature, 740 N.Y.S.2d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002), lv. denied , 98 747 N.Y.S.2d 409 (2002) (antique shop owner two blocks from proposed demolition of 10 buildings in......