## Facts

- Gulf Oil Corporation and Fenley & Nichol Co. owned property in the Town of North Hempstead operated as a gas station, a lawful nonconforming use.
- Gulf applied for a permit to construct a prefabricated metal automatic car wash to replace an existing self-service car wash.
- The Building Department denied the permit because the proposed use was not permitted in the district and the structure allegedly violated the building code’s restrictions on unprotected metal structures.
- Gulf sought a use variance from the Board of Zoning and Appeals; after Planning Commission review, plan modifications, and a public hearing, the Board granted the variance.
- Sun-Brite Car Wash, Inc., a long-term lessee operating a car wash directly across the street (also a lawful nonconforming use), commenced an Article 78 proceeding to annul the variance.
- Sun-Brite’s only substantiated objection was economic harm from increased competition, and the hearing record largely addressed competitive business losses.

## Issues

1. Whether a nearby property lessee has standing to challenge a zoning variance when its only proven injury is increased business competition.
2. Whether proximity-based presumptive standing in zoning matters is limited by a zone-of-interests requirement tied to harms zoning laws are intended to prevent.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the Article 78 proceeding for lack of standing.
- The court recognized that nearby property holders generally may obtain standing without pleading and proving special damages because adverse effect may be inferred from proximity.
- The court held that this proximity-based inference does not confer standing when the petitioner’s only substantiated injury is increased business competition, which is not an interest protected by zoning laws.
- Because Sun-Brite demonstrated only competitive economic harm, it lacked standing, and the court did not reach the merits of whether the use variance was properly granted.

## Legal Principles

- In zoning challenges, a property holder in close proximity to the subject premises may have standing without proving special damages because aggrievement can be inferred from proximity.
- Standing remains subject to a zone-of-interests limitation: the asserted injury must fall within interests zoning laws protect (e.g., effects on neighborhood character, congestion, environmental or similar land-use concerns).
- Competitive economic injury, without a protected land-use harm, is outside zoning’s zone of interests and does not support standing even for an immediate neighbor.
- Standing rules in zoning matters should not be applied so restrictively as to bar review of land-use disputes, but courts will not permit zoning litigation to be used solely to resist competition.

## Conclusion

The court held that although nearby landowners or lessees are often presumed aggrieved for standing purposes, that presumption does not apply where the only proven harm is increased business competition, which zoning laws do not protect against; accordingly, Sun-Brite lacked standing to challenge the variance.


Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning & Appeals, 69 N.Y.2d 406 (1987)