Opinion
May 31, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land located on Game Farm Road in the Town of Pawling which totals slightly more than 16 acres and which is improved by a single-family home. On or about February 18, 1986, he submitted a proposed subdivision plan of this property to the Planning Board of the Town of Pawling. The planning board rejected this proposed subdivision, citing environmental and safety reasons and the petitioner's noncompliance with certain town zoning laws.
A review of the record reveals that the decision was based on valid and reasonable grounds (see, Matter of Currier v Planning Bd., 74 A.D.2d 872, affd 52 N.Y.2d 722, rearg denied 52 N.Y.2d 1072; Matter of Diamond v Specter, 39 A.D.2d 942, 943, affd 32 N.Y.2d 811). Accordingly, the planning board's decision was not arbitrary or capricious and the petition was properly dismissed (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181).
We note furthermore that the petitioner's assertion that the planning board subordinated its own sound judgment to the will of objecting neighbors is not preserved for appeal as it was not raised before the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (see, Matter of Robusto v Tibbetts, 277 App. Div. 1008).
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.