Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: COMMERCE BANK, N.A., appellant, v. PLANNING BOARD OF TOWN OF BEDFORD, respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Bedford, dated September 14, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for preliminary site plan approval, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Loehr, J.), entered December 6, 2006, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination of the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Bedford (hereinafter the Planning Board) denying its application for preliminary site plan approval was not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Milt-Nik Land Corp. v. City of Yonkers, 24 A.D.3d 446, 806 N.Y.S.2d 217). In conducting preliminary site plan review, the Planning Board is required to set appropriate conditions and safeguards which are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Town's zoning code, and which give particular regard to, inter alia, achieving conformance of the final site development with the Town Development Plan (see Town Law § 274-a [2] [a], § 274-a[4]; Zoning Code of the Town of Bedford §§ 125-1[O ], 125-87[F]; Matter of Koncelik v. Planning Bd. of Town of E. Hampton, 188 A.D.2d 469, 470-471, 590 N.Y.S.2d 900). Here, the petitioner's preliminary site plan did not, inter alia, conform to the Town Development Plan.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 22, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)