| Matter of Commerce Bank N.A. v Planning Bd. of Town ofBedford |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00493 [47 AD3d 810] |
| January 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| mIn the Matter of Commerce Bank, N.A.,Appellant, v Planning Board of Town of Bedford,Respondent. |
—[*1] Keane & Beane, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Joel Sachs and Jennifer L. Reinke of counsel), forrespondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Boardof the Town of Bedford, dated September 14, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner'sapplication for preliminary site plan approval, the appeal is from a judgment of the SupremeCourt, Westchester County (Loehr, J.), entered December 6, 2006, which denied the petition anddismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination of the respondent Planning Boardof the Town of Bedford (hereinafter the Planning Board) denying its application for preliminarysite plan approval was not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Milt-Nik Land Corp. v City of Yonkers, 24 AD3d446 [2005]). In conducting preliminary site plan review, the Planning Board is required toset appropriate conditions and safeguards which are in harmony with the general purpose andintent of the Town's zoning code, and which give particular regard to, inter alia, achievingconformance of the final site development with the Town Development Plan (see TownLaw § 274-a [2] [a]; [4]; Zoning Code of Town of Bedford § 125-1 [O]; §125-87 [F]; Matter of Koncelik v Planning Bd. of Town of E. Hampton, 188 AD2d 469,470-471 [1992]). Here, the petitioner's preliminary site plan did not, inter alia, conform to thetown development plan.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Miller andDillon, JJ., concur.