Matter of SNYDER DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. TOWN OF AMHERST TOWN BOARD, Respondent-Respondent.
Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing its CPLR article 78 petition wherein it sought to annul the determination designating an entire parcel of real property owned by petitioner as an historic landmark. Petitioner, whose parcel encompasses a gate house, barn and wooded area in the Town of Amherst, contends that the determination must be annulled because the barn and wooded area have no historical significance. It is well established that “[a] landmark designation is an administrative determination * * * that must be upheld if it has support in the record, a reasonable basis in law, and is not arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v. City of New York, 82 N.Y.2d 35, 41, 603 N.Y.S.2d 399, 623 N.E.2d 526; see Matter of Canisius Coll. v. City of Buffalo, 217 A.D.2d 985, 985-986, 629 N.Y.S.2d 886, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 709, 634 N.Y.S.2d 443, 658 N.E.2d 221; see generally Matter of Concerned Citizens of Perinton v. Town of Perinton, 261 A.D.2d 880, 689 N.Y.S.2d 812, appeal dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 1040, 697 N.Y.S.2d 567, 719 N.E.2d 928, cert. denied sub nom. Nisco v. Town of Perinton, 529 U.S. 1111, 120 S.Ct. 1965, 146 L.Ed.2d 796). We are unable to review the propriety of Supreme Court's conclusion that the determination herein meets those criteria where, as here, respondent failed to make the necessary findings of fact regarding the historical significance of the barn and wooded area (see Matter of Fike v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Webster, 2 A.D.3d 1343, 769 N.Y.S.2d 415 [Dec. 31, 2003] ). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to respondent to set forth the factual basis for its determination.
It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to respondent for further proceedings.