The petitioner owned a medical office building in the Village of Airmont, which had one means of ingress and egress on the south side of the premises. Petitioner sought approval of an amended site plan to add additional parking spaces, improve drainage, and add another means of ingress and egress on the north side of the premises. The Board denied the petitioner’s application for approval of its amended site on April 24, 2014. However, upon reconsideration of the application on May 8, 2014, the Board approved the petitioner’s amended site plan, but the access to DeBaun Avenue was eliminated from the plan. The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the April 24, 2014, determination or, alternatively, to review so much of the May 8, 2014, determination as eliminated the access to DeBaun Avenue. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Here, the court found the only evidence in the record concerning the traffic and safety issues cited by the Board in the determinations was the conclusory opposition of neighboring residents, which was not supported by any of the Village’s consultants and was contradicted by the negative SEQRA declaration adopted by the Board. Accordingly, the court agreed with the petitioner that the record lacked sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board’s determinations denying the petitioner’s application for site plan approval. It therefore remitted the matter to the Board for the approval of the petitioner’s amended site plan, with the condition that it would provide an amended site plan with a one-way, entrance-only access via DeBaun Avenue.
Ramapo Pinnacle Properties, LLC v. Village of Airmont, 2016 WL 7109131 (NYAD 2 Dept. 12/7/2016)