Opinion
2011-11-22
In the Matter of Robert P. LYNN III, et al., appellants, v. PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, respondent.
Lynn, Gartner & Dunne, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Kenneth L. Gartner of counsel), for appellants. John C. Jilnicki, Town Attorney, East Hampton, N.Y. (Kathryn N. Santiago of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn, Gartner & Dunne, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Kenneth L. Gartner of counsel), for appellants. John C. Jilnicki, Town Attorney, East Hampton, N.Y. (Kathryn N. Santiago of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Town of East Hampton dated June 17, 2009, which denied the petitioners' application to modify a subdivision plat to enlarge an accessory building envelope and permit the construction of a principal dwelling in that envelope, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J.), dated March 16, 2011, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
There is no evidence in this record that the respondent's determination was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion ( see Matter of Fairway Manor, Inc. v. Bertinelli, 81 A.D.3d 821, 823, 916 N.Y.S.2d 630; Matter of Commercial Real Asset Mgt. v. Kessler, 38 A.D.3d 542, 543, 831 N.Y.S.2d 477). The petitioners failed to demonstrate a material change of circumstances since the time of the initial approval of the plat or submit new evidence which would warrant modification of the subdivision plat approved in 1995 ( Matter of 1066 Land Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Austerlitz, 218 A.D.2d 887, 887, 630 N.Y.S.2d 389; Matter of Marx v. Planning Bd. of Vil. of Mill Neck, 185 A.D.2d 348, 349, 586 N.Y.S.2d 807).
The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.