| Matter of Ramapo Pinnacle Props., LLC v Village of AirmontPlanning Bd. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 08238 [145 AD3d 729] |
| December 7, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Ramapo Pinnacle Properties, LLC,Appellant, v Village of Airmont Planning Board,Respondent. |
Burton Dorfman, P.C., Piermont, NY (Burton I. Dorfman and Mary Lou Chattertonof counsel), for appellant.
Sean Mack, Village Attorney, Airmont, NY (Daniel N. Kraushaar of counsel), forrespondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of thePlanning Board of the Village of Airmont dated April 24, 2014, and May 8, 2014,respectively, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for approval of itsamended site plan and, upon reconsideration, denied so much of the application assought access to its property from an abutting public roadway, the petitioner appealsfrom a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Berliner, J.), dated October24, 2014, which denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements,the petition is granted, the determinations of the Planning Board of the Village ofAirmont dated April 24, 2014, and May 8, 2014, are annulled, and the matter is remittedto the Planning Board of the Village of Airmont for further proceedings in accordanceherewith.
The petitioner owns a medical office building in the Village of Airmont, which hasone means of ingress and egress on the south side of the premises. It sought approval ofan amended site plan to add additional parking spaces, improve drainage, and addanother means of ingress and egress on the north side of the premises via DeBaunAvenue. The Planning Board of the Village of Airmont (hereinafter the Board) adopted anegative declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (hereinafterSEQRA), in which it expressly found, inter alia, that "[n]o additional traffic will begenerated as a result of the Proposed Action," the "new curb cut has the potential toreduce traffic volume at the intersection of Route 59 and Airmont Road," and "[t]rafficcalming, in the form of two raised speed bumps, have been proposed within the parkingarea to discourage outside traffic from cutting through the parking lot."
At a hearing held by the Board on the petitioner's application, numerous communitymembers, including the Mayor and two Village Trustees, opposed the access to DeBaunAvenue, [*2]citing traffic and safety concerns. Thepetitioner agreed at the hearing to a request by the Board to amend its site plan to providefor a one-way, entrance-only access via DeBaun Avenue. Nevertheless, on April 24,2014, the Board denied the petitioner's application for approval of its amended site plan.On May 8, 2014, upon reconsideration of the application, the Board approved thepetitioner's amended site plan, but the access to DeBaun Avenue was eliminated from theplan.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review theApril 24, 2014, determination or, alternatively, to review so much of the May 8, 2014,determination as eliminated the access to DeBaun Avenue. The Supreme Court deniedthe petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.
A local planning board has broad discretion in reaching its determination onapplications such as the petitioner's, and judicial review is limited to determining whetherthe action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (seeMatter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Davies Farm, LLC vPlanning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 54 AD3d 757, 758 [2008]; Matter of Gallo v Rosell, 52AD3d 514, 515 [2008]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768[2005]). A planning board's determination "should be sustained upon judicial review if itwas not illegal, has a rational basis, and is not arbitrary and capricious" (Matter ofGallo v Rosell, 52 AD3d at 515; see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d374, 384 [1995]; Matter ofKearney v Kita, 62 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2009]; Matter of Rivero v Voelker, 38AD3d 784, 785 [2007]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24AD3d at 772).
"Although scientific or other expert testimony is not required in every case to supporta zoning board's determination, the board may not base its decision on generalizedcommunity objections" (Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d at 308). In contrast,a zoning board's reliance upon specific, detailed testimony of neighbors based onpersonal knowledge does not render a variance determination the product of generalizedand conclusory community opposition (see Matter of Caspian Realty, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Townof Greenburgh, 68 AD3d 62, 76 [2009]; Matter of Millennium Custom Homes, Inc. v Young, 58 AD3d740 [2009]; Matter ofFagan v Colson, 49 AD3d 877, 878 [2008]).
Here, we agree with the petitioner that the record lacks sufficient evidence to supportthe rationality of the Board's determinations denying the petitioner's application for siteplan approval, as amended on consent of the petitioner to provide for a one-way,entrance-only access via DeBaun Avenue. The only evidence in the record concerningthe traffic and safety issues cited by the Board in the determinations was the conclusoryopposition of neighboring residents, which was not supported by any of the Village'sconsultants and was contradicted by the negative SEQRA declaration adopted by theBoard (see Matter of Pagnozzi v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Piermont, 292 AD2d613 [2002]; Matter of SCI Funeral Servs. of N.Y. v Planning Bd. of Town ofBabylon, 277 AD2d 319, 320 [2000]). Under the circumstances, the Board'sdeterminations were improperly based on generalized community opposition and shouldhave been annulled (see Matterof Bagga v Stanco, 90 AD3d 919, 921 [2011]; Matter of Necker Pottick, FoxRun Woods Bldrs. Corp. v Duncan, 251 AD2d 333, 335 [1998]).
Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Board for the approval of the petitioner'samended site plan, with the condition, consented to by the petitioner, that it will providean amended site plan with a one-way, entrance-only access via DeBaun Avenue. Rivera,J.P., Austin, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.