Development

In neighbors' article 78 proceeding challenging grant of site plan and subdivision approval, developer and the planning board appealed from Supreme Court's grant of the petition. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the proposed development was consistent with the zoning ordinance and did not require referral to the zoning board of appeals (ZBA).

Developer applied for subdivision and site plan approval for the division of an existing 6.1 acre lot into two separate lots, one of which developer would purchase to construct a 9,000 square foot Dollar General store. Although the use is a permitted use within the district, the parcel is within the town's scenic viewshed overlay district, which is designed to protect the Hudson River corridor and the Catskill Mountain viewshed. The Planning Board issued a positive declaration under SEQRA, and developer prepared three draft environmental impact statements and, ultimately, a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The Planning Board voted to accept the FEIS, noting that the proposed building would be visible from surrounding locations, but would not have a significant visual impact on the viewshed. After a public hearing at which community input on the plan was largely negative, the Planning Board conditionally approved the site plan and the subdivision, noting that the project complied with zoning, subdivision, and site plan standards. Abutting landowners then brought this proceeding challenging the planning board's determination, alleging various SEQRA violations and that the project did not meet the town's zoning standards. Supreme Court granted the petition, concluding that the Planning Board was required to submit the application to the ZBA and that the board failed to take a hard look at environmental impact. The town and the developer appealed.