Matter of Graham

2 Citing cases

  1. Youssefia v. Capozzi

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 33629 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007)

    The law is also well settled that a planning board may properly consider the impact the proposed subdivision would have on the safety and general welfare of the adjacent areas (see Matter of Peasant Kent Corp., 28 NY2d 396, 398; Matter of International Innovative Technology Group Corp. V Planning Board of Town of Woodbury, 20 AD3d 531, 533). While this includes, inter alia, the impact on traffic patterns (seeMatter of Graham v Town of Tully Planning Board, 237 AD2d 923), "a denial must be premised upon clear findings of deleterious changes that adversely affect the adjoining areas" (Matter of Van Euclid Co. v Sargent, 97 AD2d 913, 915; Matter of Graham supra at 923). It may not be based upon vague conclusory allegations that the proposed subdivision is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood (see Matter of Brucia v Planning Board of Town of Huntington, 157 AD2d 657 or "the generalized objections and concerns expressed at the hearings by members of the residential neighborhood" (Matter of Buckley v Amityville Village Clerk, 264 AD2d 732,735).

  2. Stackhouse v. Planning Bd. of Town of Cortlandt

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50548 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

    FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION It is well settled that "[a] court may substitute its judgment for that of a planning board only when the planning board has abused its discretion or has acted arbitrarily or illegally" ( Matter of Terra Homes v. Smallwood, 247 AD2d 394, 395, 667 N.Y.S.2d 920, citing Matter of Koncelik v. Planning Bd. of Town of E. Hampton, 188 AD2d 469, 590 N.Y.S.2d 900; see also Matter of Brucia v. Planning Bd. of Town of Huntington, 157 AD2d 657, 549 N.Y.S.2d 757; Matter of Hudson Canyon Constr. v. Town of Cortlandt, 262 AD2d 484, 692 N.Y.S.2d 158; Matter of McKennett v. Hines, 289 AD2d 246, 734 N.Y.S.2d 200, citing Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254; Matter of Ronsvalle v. Blumenthal, 144 AD2d 766, 767, 535 N.Y.S.2d 171; Matter of Graham v. Town of Tully Planning Bd., 237 AD2d 923, 654 N.Y.S.2d 542). As a result, a planning board's determination should be upheld if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732).