IN RE: SFG ISF SYOSSET JERICHO (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Oyster Bay Planning Advisory Board dated August 23, 2023, which denied, after a hearing, the petitioner's application for site plan approval, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (James F. Quinn, J.), dated May 30, 2024.  The judgment granted the petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter to the Town of Oyster Bay Planning Advisory Board for the issuance of certain permits to the petitioner.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner owned a parcel of real property located in Syosset.  In January 2022, the petitioner applied to the Town of Oyster Bay Planning Advisory Board (hereinafter the Planning Board) for site plan approval to develop the property for use as storage for registered commercial vehicles for a third-party logistics company.  Following a public hearing, in a resolution dated August 23, 2023, the Planning Board denied the petitioner's application.  In September 2023, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the Planning Board's determination.  In a judgment dated May 30, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter to the Planning Board for the issuance of certain permits to the petitioner.  The Planning Board appeals.

A local planning board has broad discretion in deciding applications for site plan approval, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the board's action was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Simon v. Englert, 185 A.D.3d 940, 941, 128 N.Y.S.3d 539;  Matter of Bagga v. Stanco, 90 A.D.3d 919, 920, 934 N.Y.S.2d 493).  Where, as here, a determination is made after a public hearing that is not a quasi-judicial hearing based upon sworn testimony, “courts consider ‘substantial evidence’ only to determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board's determination” (Matter of Campbell v. Town of Mount Pleasant Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 84 A.D.3d 1230, 1231, 923 N.Y.S.2d 699 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Fildon, LLC v. Planning Bd. of Inc. Vil. of Hempstead, 164 A.D.3d 501, 502, 83 N.Y.S.3d 505).  A determination will not be deemed rational if it rests entirely on subjective considerations, such as general community opposition, and is conclusory and without objective factual basis (see Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732;  Matter of Ramapo Pinnacle Props., LLC v. Village of Airmont Planning Bd., 145 A.D.3d 729, 730, 45 N.Y.S.3d 105).

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the Planning Board's determination was not supported by the evidence in the record and, therefore, lacked a rational basis.  The only evidence in the record concerning the traffic and safety issues cited by the Planning Board in the determination was the conclusory opposition of neighboring residents, which was not supported by any of the Planning Board's consultants, and was contradicted by a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act adopted by the Planning Board and the traffic impact study prepared by the petitioner's consultants (see Matter of Ramapo Pinnacle Props., LLC v. Village of Airmont Planning Bd., 145 A.D.3d at 731, 45 N.Y.S.3d 105;  Matter of Bagga v. Stanco, 90 A.D.3d at 920, 934 N.Y.S.2d 493).  Moreover, the petitioner's application fully complies with the requirements of the Town Code of the Town of Oyster Bay and is a permitted principal use within the zoning district in which the property is situated.  Under these circumstances, the Planning Board's determination was improperly based upon generalized community opposition (see Matter of Ramapo Pinnacle Props., LLC v. Village of Airmont Planning Bd., 145 A.D.3d at 731, 45 N.Y.S.3d 105;  Matter of Bagga v. Stanco, 90 A.D.3d at 921, 934 N.Y.S.2d 493).

The Planning Board's remaining contentions are without merit.

IANNACCI, J.P., TAYLOR, LANDICINO and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.