| Matter of Birch Tree Partners, LLC v NatureConservancy |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08013 [122 AD3d 841] |
| November 19, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Birch Tree Partners, LLC, Appellant,and Windsor Digital Studio, LLC, et al., Intervenors-Respondents, v NatureConservancy et al., Respondents. |
Pinks, Arbeit & Nemeth, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Robert S. Arbeit of counsel), forappellant.
Richard E. Whalen, Amagansett, N.Y., for intervenors-respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the ZoningBoard of Appeals of the Town of East Hampton dated January 10, 2012, which, after ahearing, granted the application of the Nature Conservancy for a natural resources specialpermit, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Jones, Jr., J.), entered February 1, 2013, which denied the petition and dismissed theproceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The determination of a local zoning board is entitled to great deference, and will beset aside only if it is illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or irrational (see CPLR7803 [3]; Matter of Pecoraro vBoard of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004]; Matter of Jacoby Real Prop., LLCv Malcarne, 96 AD3d 747 [2012]; Matter of Caspian Realty, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town ofGreenburgh, 68 AD3d 62, 67 [2009]; Matter of Merlotto v Town of Patterson Zoning Bd. of Appeals,43 AD3d 926 [2007]). Here, the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals ofthe Town of East Hampton to grant the application for a natural resources special permitwas not illegal, had a rational basis, and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Town of Hempsteadv Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 105 AD3d 751 [2013]; cf. Matter of Schumacher v Townof E. Hampton, N.Y. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 46 AD3d 691, 693 [2007]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed theproceeding. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.