| Matter of Spears v Town of Cortlandt Planning Bd. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07851 [44 AD3d 866] |
| October 16, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of David Spears, Appellant, v Town ofCortlandt Planning Board et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Thomas F. Wood, Town Attorney, Buchanan, N.Y. (John Klare and Daniel Riesel ofcounsel), for respondent Town of Cortlandt Planning Board. Shamberg Marwell Davis & Hollis, P.C., Mount Kisco, N.Y. (Robert F. Davis of counsel),for respondents Nicholas B. Angell and Hanay K. Angell.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review Resolution No. 15-05 of therespondent Town of Cortlandt Planning Board, dated April 5, 2005, which, inter alia, granted theapplication of the respondents Nicholas B. Angell and Hanay K. Angell for preliminarysubdivision approval, the petitioner appeals from an undated judgment of the Supreme Court,Westchester County (Murphy, J.), which, upon a decision entered April 30, 2006, denied thepetition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearingseparately and filing separate briefs.
The respondents Nicholas B. Angell and Hanay K. Angell (hereinafter the Angells) are theowners of four contiguous parcels of property totaling 58 acres within the Towns of Cortlandtand Philipstown, three of which were previously undeveloped. The Angells applied to therespondent Town of Cortlandt Planning Board (hereinafter the Planning Board) for preliminarysubdivision approval to adjust the lot lines to create four reconfigured lots, three of which wouldbe [*2]located within the Town of Cortlandt. The plan includedthe construction of a road that would provide street access to two of the parcels. The PlanningBoard, after extensive public hearings, approved the subdivision and issued a negativedeclaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8 [hereinafterSEQRA]). The petitioner, an adjoining landowner, commenced this proceeding, alleging, interalia, that the subdivision and the proposed road did not comply with the Town Code and that thePlanning Board failed to comply with the requirements of SEQRA.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Planning Board's interpretation of its subdivisionregulations was not unreasonable or irrational (see Matter of Hoag v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Clinton, 27AD3d 742 [2006]; Matter of Olivieri v Planning Bd. of Town of Greenburgh, 229AD2d 584 [1996]). Further, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Planning Board'sdetermination was irrational, arbitrary, or capricious (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98NY2d 304, 307-308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 386 [1995]).
In issuing a negative declaration, the Planning Board identified "the relevant areas ofenvironmental concern," took a "hard look" at them (Matter of Chemical Specialties Mfrs.Assn. v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 397 [1995]), and made a "reasoned elaboration" of the basisfor its determination (Matter of Merson v McNally, 90 NY2d 742, 751-752 [1997]).Further, we reject the petitioner's contention that SEQRA review was improperly segmented(see Matter of Village of Tarrytown v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Sleepy Hollow, 292 AD2d617, 620-621 [2002]; Matter of Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy. v Planning Bd. of Town ofBrookhaven, 204 AD2d 548, 551 [1994]).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Florio, Lifson andCarni, JJ., concur.