| Matter of Layne v Eastchester Planning Bd. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06245 [75 AD3d 643] |
| July 27, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of David Layne et al.,Appellants, v Eastchester Planning Board, Respondent. |
—[*1] Cerussi & Spring, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Ronald G. Crispi, Peter Riggs, and Richard W.Ashnault of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town ofEastchester Planning Board dated February 27, 2008, which, after a hearing, granted theapplication of Jalo Realty, LLC, for a special permit, site plan approval, and architectural reviewapproval for a 10-unit multifamily dwelling, on condition that Jalo Realty, LLC, demolishexisting structures and merge three tax lots into one lot, the petitioners appeal from a judgmentof the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Hubert, J.), dated July 7, 2008, which denied thepetition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Jalo Realty, LLC (hereinafter Jalo), is the owner of three adjacent pieces of real property,which are designated as three separate tax lots. One lot is located entirely within a single-familyzoning district, and one lot is located entirely within a retail business district, which permitsmultifamily residential units. The third lot, situated in between the other two lots, is divided bythe boundary between those two zoning districts. In June 2007, Jalo applied to the Town ofEastchester Planning Board (hereinafter the Planning Board), inter alia, for site plan approval tobuild 10 multifamily units on the three lots. As part of its application, Jalo sought a specialpermit pursuant to section 7 (A) of the Town of Eastchester Zoning Code, which provides thatwhere the boundary of a district divides a lot, a special use permit may be granted to extend alawful conforming use on that portion of the lot lying in the less restricted district 75 feet into themore restricted district, provided all other requirements of the more restricted district are met. Ina determination dated February 27, 2008, the Planning Board granted the application on thecondition that Jalo demolish the existing structures and merge the three tax lots into one lot. Thepetitioners then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review thedetermination.
The Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Contrary tothe petitioners' contention, the Planning Board's determination had a rational basis and was notarbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals ofTown of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004]; Matter of Weber v Baranello, 63 AD3d 955 [2009]). [*2]Jalo demonstrated that the contemplated use was in conformancewith the legislatively imposed conditions (see Matter of Retail Prop. Trust v Board of ZoningAppeals of Town of Hempstead, 98 NY2d 190, 195 [2002]; Matter of Schumacher v Town of E.Hampton, N.Y. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 46 AD3d 691, 694 [2007]; Matter of LeonPetroleum v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Mineola, 309 AD2d 804, 805 [2003]).
The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Miller andLott, JJ., concur.