Nothing in the Commission Report or the legislative history suggests that these provisions were intended to extend to non- condemnees standing to challenge the condemnor's actions in subsequent judicial proceedings. The interest addressed in sections 201-204 was solely to permit public participation in the planning of the project so that the impact of the proposed project could be addressed at the planning stage. All that petitioners are entitled to under EDPL is a properly conducted hearing held on proper notice. Because such a hearing took place here, petitioners have no assertable EDPL standing. Alternatively, petitioners urge that this Court should take a more expansive approach to standing, akin to that employed in determining standing in proceedings involving zoning laws.
Petitioners suggest such a rule is appropriate here.
Petitioners next urge that they have standing because of a recent amendment to the statute. The legislative history indicates otherwise. The amendment was enacted in response to our ruling in Pizzuti v Metropolitan Tr. That narrowly expanded scope of review, however, applies only to those first establishing EDPL standing. This is especially true where, as here, the condemnor is the UDC with its powers to override local procedural safeguards and controls like the City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure.