Opinion
2013-02682
11-19-2014
In the Matter of BIRCH TREE PARTNERS, LLC, appellant, Windsor Digital Studio, LLC, et al., intervenors-respondents, v. Nature Conservancy, et al., respondents.
Pinks, Arbeit & Nemeth, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Robert S. Arbeit of counsel), for appellant. Richard E. Whalen, Amagansett, N.Y., for intervenors-respondents.
Pinks, Arbeit & Nemeth, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Robert S. Arbeit of counsel), for appellant.
Richard E. Whalen, Amagansett, N.Y., for intervenors-respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Opinion In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Hampton dated January 10, 2012, which, after a hearing, granted the application of the Nature Conservancy for a natural resources special permit, 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 the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The determination of a local zoning board is entitled to great deference, and will be set aside only if it is illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or irrational (see CPLR 7803[3] ; Matter of Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d 608, 613, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404 ; Matter of Jacoby Real Prop. LLC v. Malcarne, 96 A.D.3d 747, 946 N.Y.S.2d 190 ; Matter of Caspian Realty, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenburgh, 68 A.D.3d 62, 67, 886 N.Y.S.2d 442 ; Matter of Merlotto v. Town of Paterson Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 43 A.D.3d 926, 841 N.Y.S.2d 650 ). Here, the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Hampton to grant the application for a natural resources special permit was not illegal, had a rational basis, and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Town of Hempstead v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 105 A.D.3d 751, 962 N.Y.S.2d 636 ; cf. Matter of Schumacher v. Town of E. Hampton, N.Y. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 46 A.D.3d 691, 693, 849 N.Y.S.2d 72 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.