Opinion
Argued February 2, 2001.
March 5, 2001.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Planning Board of East Hampton dated October 14, 1998, granting the intervenors' application for a special use permit to operate a horse farm, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated September 27, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Martin S. Rapaport, New York, N.Y. (Karen F. Neuwirth of counsel), for appellants.
Richard E. DePetris, Southampton, N.Y., for respondent-respondent.
Battle Fowler, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael J. Malone, Paul A. Straus, and Carolyn Byrne of counsel), for intervenor-respondents.
Before: WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondent and the intervenor-respondents.
The determination of the Planning Board of East Hampton (hereinafter the Planning Board) was not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Khan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington, 87 N.Y.2d 344; Matter of Cowan v. Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591). In particular, we find no basis to disturb the Planning Board's findings that the proposed horse farm, with the conditions imposed, is a permissible use within the meaning of the agricultural easement that burdens the property, and would not violate any relevant provision of the Code of the Town of East Hampton or the New York Agriculture and Markets Law.
The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit.