Opinion
November 29, 1993
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The respondent's finding that the volume of traffic which would be generated by the proposed retail use of the property would far exceed that generated by any other unconditionally permitted uses in the area was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, Matter of Lee Realty Co. v Village of Spring Val., 61 N.Y.2d 892, 894; Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin, 11 N.Y.2d 20, 24-25; Matter of Marriott Corp. v Rose, 168 A.D.2d 682; cf., Matter of Triangle Inn v Lo Grande, 124 A.D.2d 737). Given the already congested traffic conditions in the area, this finding constituted a reasonable ground for the respondent's conclusion that the proposed use would be detrimental to the public welfare (see, Matter of Texaco Ref. Mktg. v Valente, 174 A.D.2d 674; Matter of C B Realty Co. v Town Bd., 139 A.D.2d 510). Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.